Riding and weight loss?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39
From: Ernie Willson
Subject: Riding and weight loss?

I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding.
This could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180
minutes every 4 days and so on.

This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
that 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
once each week?

TIA, EJ in NJ

Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:00:48
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Date: 19 Dec 2006 14:45:08
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in
message
news:1166544047.976231.82950@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
:: Ernie Willson wrote:
::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
::: days and so on.
:::
::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example would
::: 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90 minutes
::: every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
::: once each week?
:::
::: TIA, EJ in NJ
::
::
:: I don't there's a lot of weight to be lost doing
:: "recreational" riding, if we mean the same thing by that
:: term. People who aren't fit to begin with will see the
:: most benefit, but generally speaking, machines make life
:: and leisure *easier* -- so, just be realistic about your
:: goals.
::
:: If weight loss is your main motivation, you'll need a
:: holistic approach involving diet and more physically
:: rigorous activities, not to mention adequate sleep!
:: Yes, not enough sleep will get you stressed, and stress
:: activates cortisol which promotes fat-keeping, since the
:: body thinks it's in for bad times and so tries to store
:: away fat....
::
:: When I commute every day, five days a week, for like
:: three or four months at a stretch, I only ever saw
:: sustained loss of about ten pounds maximum, and that's
:: on top of other activities of mine like weight lifting
:: and so forth (though I don't exactly diet, either). So
:: it's hard to separate all the factors involved, but IMHE
:: bicycling isn't a real fat-burner.

Why do you expect cycling to burn your fat off if you keep putting up back
when you eat?

There is no wonder why the dieting industry makes so much money off of
people who have such primitive notions of what it takes to lose a pound.

Physically rigourous activity has NOTHING to do with weight loss. I happen
to know of one person who lost half his bodyweight with practically no
formal exercise. And those who do lots of physically rigorous (whatever
that means) exercise on a regular basis always manage to maintan their
weight. They do so simply because their eating is in balance with their
activity and thus they maintain their weight.

You guys do realize that if you undereat, you can lose muscle too, right?
Fat isn't the only thing that can be lost as a result of exercise.

Of course, there really is no point is expecting you guys to understand
this, because if you could it is doubtful you would have pecked out such
comments in the first place.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:49:19
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Prisoner at War wrote:

> When I commute every day, five days a week, for like three or four
> months at a stretch, I only ever saw sustained loss of about ten pounds
> maximum, and that's on top of other activities of mine like weight
> lifting and so forth (though I don't exactly diet, either). So it's
> hard to separate all the factors involved, but IMHE bicycling isn't a
> real fat-burner.

I have been bicycle commuting about 22-25 miles round trip nearly
every day for about 15 years now, and I think I have to agree with
you.

I do gain a little weight during the winter when my bike riding
slows down to avoid sweating (not good when it's cold) and to deal
with more treacherous riding conditions. The weight falls off
come summer when I pick up the pace, and ride longer alternative
routes to/from work. But we're not talking gobs of pounds here.

The bike does, IMHO, allow me to eat pretty much as I want though.
I've always been a heavy eater blessed with high metabolism (and
height) that just doesn't put on pounds or show the bit I do. I
make no attempt to change my eating habits and hold largely steady
in my weight.

I largely attribute the bike commute in allowing me this.

SMH

Date: 19 Dec 2006 11:44:08
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On 19 Dec 2006 08:00:48 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
<prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>Ernie Willson wrote:
>> I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding.
>> This could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180
>> minutes every 4 days and so on.
>>
>> This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
>> weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
>> that 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
>> once each week?
>>
>> TIA, EJ in NJ
>
>
>I don't there's a lot of weight to be lost doing "recreational" riding,
>if we mean the same thing by that term. People who aren't fit to begin
>with will see the most benefit, but generally speaking, machines make
>life and leisure *easier* -- so, just be realistic about your goals.
>
>If weight loss is your main motivation, you'll need a holistic approach
>involving diet and more physically rigorous activities, not to mention
>adequate sleep! Yes, not enough sleep will get you stressed, and
>stress activates cortisol which promotes fat-keeping, since the body
>thinks it's in for bad times and so tries to store away fat....
>
>When I commute every day, five days a week, for like three or four
>months at a stretch, I only ever saw sustained loss of about ten pounds
>maximum, and that's on top of other activities of mine like weight
>lifting and so forth (though I don't exactly diet, either). So it's
>hard to separate all the factors involved, but IMHE bicycling isn't a
>real fat-burner.

I completely agree. Others may shout at you for saying this though, using
words like 'pie hole'. ;-D

One thing that I think is true, is that at a certain level of riding ("ride
lots") you reach a point where it is not easy to eat enough to keep your
weight (fat) from dropping. It doesn't have to be at the level of a TdF
rider, either.

Riders that do touring report that they start to lose weight at about the
point where they're riding above 25-30 miles per day, iirc. In addition
many of them report an appetite suppressant effect at around 30-50 miles
per day, even at 12mph avg speed. That's about the level of 15-20 hours per
week. It may be speed independent, though faster riders will probably reach
these thresholds sooner, on less mileage. Not sure what the break point is,
but it's probably around 18-20mph avg speed.

My goal is, at some point, to reach the level (speed and time) of daily
riding that I'm expending a threshold level of calories such that the
weight just naturally starts to drop off. That way I can completely drop
the strict attention to diet. Just eat clean and don't worry about the
calories. IMO, this is a much better way to do it - IF you have the time -
than being a 'diet weenie'. ;-)

I think it's at about the level of 10 hours per week that this happens. As
you near 14hrs/week, I think there may be an appetite suppressant effect
that can kick in for some people. Not sure.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:41:30
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:055go2dv7ldrb6vq4do5lro52nt08k9020@4ax.com...
> On 19 Dec 2006 08:00:48 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
> <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ernie Willson wrote:
> >> I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding.
> >> This could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180
> >> minutes every 4 days and so on.
> >>
> >> This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
> >> weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
> >> that 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
> >> once each week?
> >>
> >> TIA, EJ in NJ
> >
> >
> >I don't there's a lot of weight to be lost doing "recreational" riding,
> >if we mean the same thing by that term. People who aren't fit to begin
> >with will see the most benefit, but generally speaking, machines make
> >life and leisure *easier* -- so, just be realistic about your goals.
> >
> >If weight loss is your main motivation, you'll need a holistic approach
> >involving diet and more physically rigorous activities, not to mention
> >adequate sleep! Yes, not enough sleep will get you stressed, and
> >stress activates cortisol which promotes fat-keeping, since the body
> >thinks it's in for bad times and so tries to store away fat....
> >
> >When I commute every day, five days a week, for like three or four
> >months at a stretch, I only ever saw sustained loss of about ten pounds
> >maximum, and that's on top of other activities of mine like weight
> >lifting and so forth (though I don't exactly diet, either). So it's
> >hard to separate all the factors involved, but IMHE bicycling isn't a
> >real fat-burner.
>
> I completely agree. Others may shout at you for saying this though, using
> words like 'pie hole'. ;-D
>
> One thing that I think is true, is that at a certain level of riding
("ride
> lots") you reach a point where it is not easy to eat enough to keep your
> weight (fat) from dropping. It doesn't have to be at the level of a TdF
> rider, either.
>
> Riders that do touring report that they start to lose weight at about the
> point where they're riding above 25-30 miles per day, iirc. In addition
> many of them report an appetite suppressant effect at around 30-50 miles
> per day, even at 12mph avg speed. That's about the level of 15-20 hours
per
> week.

It all just depends on how much you eat, compared to how much you ride.
I've done week-long tours in Colorado (averaging 400+ miles per week, with
30,000+ feet of climbing) on which I've actually gained weight. It's really
easy to do when you eat 4 meals per day, and have a few beers each evening.

GG

> It may be speed independent, though faster riders will probably reach
> these thresholds sooner, on less mileage. Not sure what the break point
is,
> but it's probably around 18-20mph avg speed.
>
> My goal is, at some point, to reach the level (speed and time) of daily
> riding that I'm expending a threshold level of calories such that the
> weight just naturally starts to drop off. That way I can completely drop
> the strict attention to diet. Just eat clean and don't worry about the
> calories. IMO, this is a much better way to do it - IF you have the time -
> than being a 'diet weenie'. ;-)
>
> I think it's at about the level of 10 hours per week that this happens. As
> you near 14hrs/week, I think there may be an appetite suppressant effect
> that can kick in for some people. Not sure.
>
>

Date: 20 Dec 2006 08:06:03
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:41:30 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>> One thing that I think is true, is that at a certain level of riding
>>("ride lots") you reach a point where it is not easy to eat enough to keep
>> weight (fat) from dropping. It doesn't have to be at the level of a TdF
>> rider, either.
>>
>> Riders that do touring report that they start to lose weight at about the
>> point where they're riding above 25-30 miles per day, iirc. In addition
>> many of them report an appetite suppressant effect at around 30-50 miles
>> per day, even at 12mph avg speed. That's about the level of 15-20 hours
>>per week.
>
>It all just depends on how much you eat, compared to how much you ride.
>I've done week-long tours in Colorado (averaging 400+ miles per week, with
>30,000+ feet of climbing) on which I've actually gained weight. It's really
>easy to do when you eat 4 meals per day, and have a few beers each evening.
>
>GG

So what? Are you proving my initial comments, that cycling is not
particularly good at aiding weight loss (at certain levels of riding;
time/speed)?

The point is, for the final time, at or past certain levels of riding it is
difficult not to lose weight, but it's higher than most recreational riders
normally do. (~150 flat miles/week, in my case). At those levels you have
to purposefully increase your eating (and it will become obvious to you
that you are doing so) to maintain your weight. At this point, one could
purposefully restrict getting those 'extra' calories and still feel quite
satiated. Thus the weight (fat) would come off without having to be a diet
weenie. This is the method that is preferable, because when you do the diet
weenie path people often end up failing, or struggling and dealing with
self-deceptiona and other factors. The 'ride a lot' method seems to get
past those. Ten-12 hours per week is not that much and can be rather easily
achieved, especially in season.

YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY. Find your own freakin' threshold.

I bet if you had cut back on the beers you'd have dropped your BF% to below
what it normally is, unless you were already near 10-12%, at which point
the body might have protective mechanisms to keep you near that level.
There's another 'threshold' at about 5-6% BF that bodybuilders run into
that is very hard to achieve/maintain, though some have less trouble.

Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:50:31
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

>>>I think it's at about the level of 10 hours per week that this happens.
>>>As
you near 14hrs/week, I think there may be an appetite suppressant effect
that can kick in for some people. Not sure.
<<<

When I was riding across Canada in 1976. Vancouver to Montreal w/ a car
carrying our equipment to camp. We started riding in Lake Louise BTW, but
we rode 60 to 80 miles a day (8-10 hours a day.) Stops for lunch and
taking in scenery spots but that is more like 60-70 hrs/wk. Judging by my
Montreal photo I did not lose any weight. That was not my goal either
though. Montreal Olympics was. Still carrying some baby fat I guess.

Date: 20 Dec 2006 07:58:41
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:50:31 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:

>>>>I think it's at about the level of 10 hours per week that this happens.
>>>>As you near 14hrs/week, I think there may be an appetite suppressant effect
>>>>that can kick in for some people. Not sure.
><<<
>
>When I was riding across Canada in 1976. Vancouver to Montreal w/ a car
>carrying our equipment to camp. We started riding in Lake Louise BTW, but
>we rode 60 to 80 miles a day (8-10 hours a day.) Stops for lunch and
>taking in scenery spots but that is more like 60-70 hrs/wk. Judging by my
>Montreal photo I did not lose any weight. That was not my goal either
>though. Montreal Olympics was. Still carrying some baby fat I guess.

How much did you weigh at the time? If close to your ideal weight, maybe
you wouldn't lose appreciable weight. Any idea the amount of food you were
eating? Did you eat continuously during the ride, and carb up alot at the
rest stops?

I'd think a reasonably fit and lean rider wouldn't experience too much of a
weight flux. I'll also note that there's a famous pair that did a lot of
riding in the Blue Ridge Mountains, a guy and a girl. If you look at the
photos in the book, he's at least 30lbs heavy, probably well over 200 at
about 5'9 or so and has quite a gut. Amazing that he rode as much as he did
and still looked very tubular. If you're interested I'll dig out the book
and post particulars.

Date: 20 Dec 2006 18:37:26
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

>>>>>How much did you weigh at the time? If close to your ideal weight,
>>>>>maybe
you wouldn't lose appreciable weight. Any idea the amount of food you were
eating? Did you eat continuously during the ride, and carb up alot at the
rest stops?
<<<

I was very active, sports all year, pe courses, and riding to university
everyday Maybe 10 miles each way.
Did not watch what I ate. No food on the bike. And I had to ride a bike
owned by a girl about 6 inches shorter than me and did not know what that
was doing to my performance.
Next time I cross it with the Canadian seniors cycling group I hope, I will
have my own bike. Knew nothing about specialty diet like carbing up the
night before or during. I remember carrying gorp so maybe we did have
snacks during.
If only I knew then what I know now.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 14:43:04
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:055go2dv7ldrb6vq4do5lro52nt08k9020@4ax.com
:: On 19 Dec 2006 08:00:48 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
:: <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote:
::
:::
::: Ernie Willson wrote:
:::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
:::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
:::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
:::: days and so on.
::::
:::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
:::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example
:::: would 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90
:::: minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7)
:::: minutes once each week?
::::
:::: TIA, EJ in NJ
:::
:::
::: I don't there's a lot of weight to be lost doing
::: "recreational" riding, if we mean the same thing by
::: that term. People who aren't fit to begin with will
::: see the most benefit, but generally speaking, machines
::: make life and leisure *easier* -- so, just be realistic
::: about your goals.
:::
::: If weight loss is your main motivation, you'll need a
::: holistic approach involving diet and more physically
::: rigorous activities, not to mention adequate sleep!
::: Yes, not enough sleep will get you stressed, and stress
::: activates cortisol which promotes fat-keeping, since
::: the body thinks it's in for bad times and so tries to
::: store away fat....
:::
::: When I commute every day, five days a week, for like
::: three or four months at a stretch, I only ever saw
::: sustained loss of about ten pounds maximum, and that's
::: on top of other activities of mine like weight lifting
::: and so forth (though I don't exactly diet, either). So
::: it's hard to separate all the factors involved, but
::: IMHE bicycling isn't a real fat-burner.
::
:: I completely agree. Others may shout at you for saying
:: this though, using words like 'pie hole'. ;-D
::
:: One thing that I think is true, is that at a certain
:: level of riding ("ride lots") you reach a point where it
:: is not easy to eat enough to keep your weight (fat) from
:: dropping. It doesn't have to be at the level of a TdF
:: rider, either.

Whatever you say...

::
:: Riders that do touring report that they start to lose
:: weight at about the point where they're riding above
:: 25-30 miles per day, iirc. In addition many of them
:: report an appetite suppressant effect at around 30-50
:: miles per day, even at 12mph avg speed. That's about the
:: level of 15-20 hours per week. It may be speed
:: independent, though faster riders will probably reach
:: these thresholds sooner, on less mileage. Not sure what
:: the break point is, but it's probably around 18-20mph
:: avg speed.

And do these riders have weight loss as a goal? If not, this is completely
meaningless.

::
:: My goal is, at some point, to reach the level (speed and
:: time) of daily riding that I'm expending a threshold
:: level of calories such that the weight just naturally
:: starts to drop off.

Weight doesn't naturally start to drop off. Exactly what are you trying to
say? If you ride enough that you lose weight inspite of your eating, there
isnt anything natural about it. If you got locked in a room with no food
for a month, would your weight loss be natural?

:: That way I can completely drop the
:: strict attention to diet.

ah....see...you don't wish to pay attention to diet. But the problem here is
that your chances of success will be lower, especially if you're a person
who has responsibilities, like family, job, and a mortgage.

:: Just eat clean and don't worry
:: about the calories.

Of course, eating "clean" is subjective and has little to do with weight
loss.

IMO, this is a much better way to do
:: it - IF you have the time - than being a 'diet weenie'.
:: ;-)

Okay....you'll be another kind of weenie..

::
:: I think it's at about the level of 10 hours per week
:: that this happens. As you near 14hrs/week, I think there
:: may be an appetite suppressant effect that can kick in
:: for some people. Not sure.

Just hours?

IME, appeitite suppressant from exercise kicks in with modertate amounts
done in a consistent way. Large amounts and vigorous activity can stimulate
appetite.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 16:44:27
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:43:04 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>:: Just eat clean and don't worry
>:: about the calories.
>
>Of course, eating "clean" is subjective and has little to do with weight
>loss.
>
> IMO, this is a much better way to do
>:: it - IF you have the time - than being a 'diet weenie'.
>:: ;-)
>
>Okay....you'll be another kind of weenie..
>
>::
>:: I think it's at about the level of 10 hours per week
>:: that this happens. As you near 14hrs/week, I think there
>:: may be an appetite suppressant effect that can kick in
>:: for some people. Not sure.
>
>Just hours?
>
>IME, appeitite suppressant from exercise kicks in with modertate amounts
>done in a consistent way. Large amounts and vigorous activity can stimulate
>appetite.

Whereas you're just babbling now, Roger, I'm trying to go by actual
experiences and accounts that others have posted and related. I don't know
the precise answer, but as I said, right now, I think it's around 10-12
hours of moderate speed cycling per week that the weight start to drop off.
The caloric expenditure has gotten high enough that the need for special
attention to diet diminishes. I thought you said you understood this in the
previous thread?

Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:44:33
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:96ngo29hun56jeegfl1rsasfcc1o053bbr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:43:04 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >:: Just eat clean and don't worry
> >:: about the calories.
> >
> >Of course, eating "clean" is subjective and has little to do with weight
> >loss.
> >
> > IMO, this is a much better way to do
> >:: it - IF you have the time - than being a 'diet weenie'.
> >:: ;-)
> >
> >Okay....you'll be another kind of weenie..
> >
> >::
> >:: I think it's at about the level of 10 hours per week
> >:: that this happens. As you near 14hrs/week, I think there
> >:: may be an appetite suppressant effect that can kick in
> >:: for some people. Not sure.
> >
> >Just hours?
> >
> >IME, appeitite suppressant from exercise kicks in with modertate amounts
> >done in a consistent way. Large amounts and vigorous activity can
stimulate
> >appetite.
>
> Whereas you're just babbling now, Roger, I'm trying to go by actual
> experiences and accounts that others have posted and related. I don't know
> the precise answer, but as I said, right now, I think it's around 10-12
> hours of moderate speed cycling per week that the weight start to drop
off.
> The caloric expenditure has gotten high enough that the need for special
> attention to diet diminishes. I thought you said you understood this in
the
> previous thread?
>

So, the more you ride (thus burning more calories), the less attention you
have to pay to what goes into the pie hole?

Wow...what an astute discovery!!! Perhaps you can patent this...

FWIW, people routinely lose significant weight while doing modest amounts of
low-intensity exercise (e.g., walking). Of course, this route is more
dependent on pie-hole control.

GG

Date: 20 Dec 2006 07:54:16
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:44:33 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>> Whereas you're just babbling now, Roger, I'm trying to go by actual
>> experiences and accounts that others have posted and related. I don't know
>> the precise answer, but as I said, right now, I think it's around 10-12
>> hours of moderate speed cycling per week that the weight start to drop
>off.
>> The caloric expenditure has gotten high enough that the need for special
>> attention to diet diminishes. I thought you said you understood this in
>the
>> previous thread?
>>
>
>So, the more you ride (thus burning more calories), the less attention you
>have to pay to what goes into the pie hole?
>
>Wow...what an astute discovery!!! Perhaps you can patent this...
>
>FWIW, people routinely lose significant weight while doing modest amounts of
>low-intensity exercise (e.g., walking). Of course, this route is more
>dependent on pie-hole control.
>
>GG

Hey, dumbass, I merely mentioned it in the very early part of the thread.
All the posting has been trying to get you nice people to understand a
passing comment to that effect. ;-)

What I think is interesting is not that there's anything to discover about
calories in vs calories out, but that at some level of riding the balance
seems to tip towards weight loss, probably due to two factors.

Apparently you're too enlightened to pick up on this, which I've stated
many times in this dialogue.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 00:32:45
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <1166366419.733654.309520@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ian.rosenberg@gmail.com" <ian.rosenberg@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > Set wrote:
> >
> >> Some people get a noticeable endorphin release during exercise, but it is
> >> rare for cycling; more common for runners.
> >
> > whoah... like you mean if I could run I could get even more of them...?
> > Really really totally wow like.
> >
> > In the last race I was in there came a point where all pain stopped.
> > Then my ipod suddenly stopped working right. The tempo of the music
> > was totally screwed up... slowwwwwwwed way down. It was when I
> > realized that my heartrate monitor, odometer, and ipod were all acting
> > up regarding numbers and despite the feeling that I was doing lazy club
> > ride was still in the paceline that I decided it was perhaps _me_
> > rather than the electronics.
> >
> > After getting off the bike I sat and stared at things for a while. I
> > recall it taking about thirty minutes before the friend who took my
> > water bottle from me got back. I understand it was actually more like
> > three or four minutes.
>
> By any chance, did anyone offer you a homemade
> brownie or power bar before the race?

Nope. Most interesting thing I had that morning was a can of Diet Coke
(and you have no idea how hard it is to find Diet Coke in Asia). Also
an ibuprofen.

And while that was the most intensely I've had ever had that happen to
me from exercise alone, it was hardly the first time.

First pain stops. Then comes nausea. If I keep going past nausea
thats when things start getting very very interesting.

The previous time that I passed nausea was while training. It was
maybe the third time the paceline dropped me and I caught up and was
dropped again at the next incline and was sprinting to catch up when I
decided to just stop trying to catch up with the group and instead ride
slowly and enjoy the wonderful headwind.

-M

Date: 17 Dec 2006 23:00:53
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

In article <c2bco2lh4p584tgfmipic66hjgpu0ngq4b@4ax.com >,
Set<@setnet.com > writes:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:21:07 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>:: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
>>:: it may be that as you ride more, you get more efficient
>>:: so that you actually get good at minimizing caloric
>>:: expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
>>:: is impacted in a way that food you eat is more
>>:: efficiently utilized.
>>
>>Or, you've just reached equilibrium.
>
> Let me put it this way. Take a beginner cyclist, have him ride a certain
> course. Take an experienced cyclist, and have him ride the same course.
> Both have equivalent fitness (perhaps the cyclist got his fitness in
> triathlons).
>
> I think you'll find the experienced cyclist can ride the same course in a
> similar time but his energy output would be less, due to superior handling,
> aerodynamics, pedaling ability, and other intangibles. His caloric output
> could be 5-10% less than the beginner. (just guessing).

I think with a beginning cyclist, his muscles will tend
to fight against each other at first, resulting in a sort
of isometric exercise effect.

With more experience, the rider's muscles "learn" to
co-operate with each other, as his cycling movements
become more fluid, and less strained & jerky.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:32:37
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:00:53 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <c2bco2lh4p584tgfmipic66hjgpu0ngq4b@4ax.com>,
> Set<@setnet.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:21:07 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>:: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
>>>:: it may be that as you ride more, you get more efficient
>>>:: so that you actually get good at minimizing caloric
>>>:: expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
>>>:: is impacted in a way that food you eat is more
>>>:: efficiently utilized.
>>>
>>>Or, you've just reached equilibrium.
>>
>> Let me put it this way. Take a beginner cyclist, have him ride a certain
>> course. Take an experienced cyclist, and have him ride the same course.
>> Both have equivalent fitness (perhaps the cyclist got his fitness in
>> triathlons).
>>
>> I think you'll find the experienced cyclist can ride the same course in a
>> similar time but his energy output would be less, due to superior handling,
>> aerodynamics, pedaling ability, and other intangibles. His caloric output
>> could be 5-10% less than the beginner. (just guessing).
>
>I think with a beginning cyclist, his muscles will tend
>to fight against each other at first, resulting in a sort
>of isometric exercise effect.
>
>With more experience, the rider's muscles "learn" to
>co-operate with each other, as his cycling movements
>become more fluid, and less strained & jerky.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom

I think that's true. I was still fighting my position in the saddle, which
I learned was happening when I put the bike on the trainer. I was using
some quad strength to push myself up onto the saddle and had to tilt the
nose up and put it back further on the rails.

When you think about it there's a lot of capability to relax and use the
bike to increase efficiency, especially compared to running, where the
style and stride length is going to be somewhat fixed. (I understand that
there's been a minor revolution in running/jogging wrt shortening the
stride length.)

Date: 17 Dec 2006 11:30:11
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

In article <1166366419.733654.309520@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"ian.rosenberg@gmail.com" <ian.rosenberg@gmail.com > writes:
>
> Set wrote:
>
>> Some people get a noticeable endorphin release during exercise, but it is
>> rare for cycling; more common for runners.
>
> whoah... like you mean if I could run I could get even more of them...?
> Really really totally wow like.
>
> In the last race I was in there came a point where all pain stopped.
> Then my ipod suddenly stopped working right. The tempo of the music
> was totally screwed up... slowwwwwwwed way down. It was when I
> realized that my heartrate monitor, odometer, and ipod were all acting
> up regarding numbers and despite the feeling that I was doing lazy club
> ride was still in the paceline that I decided it was perhaps _me_
> rather than the electronics.
>
> After getting off the bike I sat and stared at things for a while. I
> recall it taking about thirty minutes before the friend who took my
> water bottle from me got back. I understand it was actually more like
> three or four minutes.

By any chance, did anyone offer you a homemade
brownie or power bar before the race?

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 17 Dec 2006 08:35:29
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

nash wrote:
> Okay, have you tried just looking at food instead of eating it.
> Does that put the weight on too?

One simply needs the right diet to help things along. :)
http://www.recipezaar.com/156010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfbTO0GlONU

Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:40:20
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set wrote:

> Some people get a noticeable endorphin release during exercise, but it is
> rare for cycling; more common for runners.

whoah... like you mean if I could run I could get even more of them...?
Really really totally wow like.

In the last race I was in there came a point where all pain stopped.
Then my ipod suddenly stopped working right. The tempo of the music
was totally screwed up... slowwwwwwwed way down. It was when I
realized that my heartrate monitor, odometer, and ipod were all acting
up regarding numbers and despite the feeling that I was doing lazy club
ride was still in the paceline that I decided it was perhaps _me_
rather than the electronics.

After getting off the bike I sat and stared at things for a while. I
recall it taking about thirty minutes before the friend who took my
water bottle from me got back. I understand it was actually more like
three or four minutes.

-M

Date: 16 Dec 2006 22:31:14
From:
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

nash wrote:
> "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message
> news:pg%gh.106$2Y2.100@newsfe03.lga...
> > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> > news:NMZgh.496123$R63.179149@pd7urf1no...
> >>
> >> "Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr> wrote in message
> >> news:nin8o21k3msvj7r5htovnnk8ckifaugtdt@4ax.com...
> >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16 -0500, Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep
> > it
> >> >>off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
> >> >>exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
> >> >>requires more strictness.
> >> >
> >> > Do you have references for these assertions?
> >>
> >> With decreasing metabolism he is mainly right. It slows your absorption
> > of
> >> food and the speed at which your muscles can burn it.
> >
> > The effect is real, but fairly small. For a 6' 170 lb male who is
> > "moderately active", the estimate for daily calories burned changes from
> > 2598 calories per day at age 53, to 2588 calories per day at age 54...so,
> > only 10 calories per day difference.
> >
> > GG
> >
> >> All processes are slowed down 'cept a couple organs I can think of.
> >> Very important then to stay in shape. That is why children and seniors
> > are
> >> more susceptible to illness. If a child or pensioner was working 8 hours
> > a
> >> day they would not be as seriously ill when the flu comes around.
> > Exposure
> >> to people at work and school being variables.
> >>
> >> >>requires more strictness
> >>
> >> I would say requires more experience. If you know what is going to
> > happen,
> >> you can start training for it now. It is suppose to be a life long
> >> attitude.
>
>
> true 10 calories a day for some is nothing.
> 10/day x 365 is a problem for others. That equals one pound a year or one
> inch on the waist/ yr as they say. The problem really arises when they burn
> slower but eat the same as they did twenty years ago and in the future also.
> That one difference is the key to everything. Same as a mother eating for
> two when she is no longer pregnant. Same psychology that is.
> If you could kick that habit no one would be overweight I am quite sure. It
> is overeating plain and simple. We buy things we do not need we eat when we
> are not hungry. Blame N. American culture. But try to turn it around and
> get rid of bad habits. Why else does N. America have the worst health in
> the world practically.
> If your BMI is outside normal you are going to be more sick. From lack of
> money or lack of knowledge, and a combination, is the main reason anyone is
> sick or overweight. I consider them one in the same. Change your attitude,
> change your life. Do not procrastinate either. volunteer if you have time.
> Donate. You probably do not need alot of stuff if you are a compulsive
> buyer.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 08:27:02
From:
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set wrote:
SNIP
> OK typical eating when doing strict LC is one cup steak cubes for
> breakfast, hburger on lettuce for lunch, chicken, burger or fish for
> dinner, with one side dish of veggies. No sugar. No obvious carbs. Nada
> white carbs. Unlimited drinks. (coffee, milk, unsweetened sodas). Snacks
> were handful of nuts, cheese, fried egg. Chocolate milk or replacement
> drink in the hour window.
SNIP
Dear Set:
You are aware an eight ounce glass of milik contains about 12 grams
of carbohydrate, aren't you?

Robert Leone rleone@hotmail.com

Date: 16 Dec 2006 12:31:08
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On 16 Dec 2006 08:27:02 -0800, rleone@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>Set wrote:
>SNIP
>> OK typical eating when doing strict LC is one cup steak cubes for
>> breakfast, hburger on lettuce for lunch, chicken, burger or fish for
>> dinner, with one side dish of veggies. No sugar. No obvious carbs. Nada
>> white carbs. Unlimited drinks. (coffee, milk, unsweetened sodas). Snacks
>> were handful of nuts, cheese, fried egg. Chocolate milk or replacement
>> drink in the hour window.
>SNIP
>Dear Set:
> You are aware an eight ounce glass of milik contains about 12 grams
>of carbohydrate, aren't you?
>
>Robert Leone rleone@hotmail.com

Dear Robert.

You aren't Canadian are you? ;-)

PS - yes, milk also contains lactose, which is milk sugar. Some people are
more sensitive than others and that can knock them out of BDK. I usually
drink 8-16oz pre and post exercise, which is in the 'window' period.

However I do lose weight a bit faster when I cut out dairy. Nuts, cheese
and vegetables also contain carbs.

Thanks.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:24:04
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Ernie Willson" <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote in message
news:45817f93$0$1607$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com
:: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
:: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
:: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4 days
:: and so on.
::
:: This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule
:: to maximize weight/fat loss. For example would 45
:: minutes a day be less effective that 90 minutes every
:: two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes once
:: each week?
::
:: TIA, EJ in NJ

Do whatever you can do consisently, while keeping a close eye on how much
you're eating. Riding short but frequently probably helps build better
habits, especially at first. Harder/longer riding my stimulate appetite to
the point that you may eat too much to achieve weight loss.

You can easily eat in under 1 minute what it will take over an hour to work
off. Hence, diet (how much you eat) is of priy importance in weight
loss. If you eat too much, you'll have a really hard time making it up in
exercise if you have other committments on your time (ie, you can't devote
24/7 to exercise/weight loss - like on TV).

As far as optimum, forget that. Do what it takes to lose the weight. That's
optimum for you. And I'm saying this after having lost 140 lbs while keeping
it off.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 14:44:28
From: JP
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Ernie Willson" <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote in message
news:45817f93$0$1607$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding. This
>could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes
>every 4 days and so on.
>
> This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
> weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective that
> 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes once
> each week?
>
> TIA, EJ in NJ

I started riding every day for health reasons in August.
My target is a 15mile minimum with longer rides on weekends and free days,
so I ride between one and two hours a day. Fortunately I have a schedule
(or lack thereof) to allow it.

The problem with cycling is it is a very efficient means of moving so the
calorie per hour rate is fairly low compared to most other activities.
The advantage to cycling is that it does not stress the joints.
If you can run that would be the way to max your calorie burn for the time
you can afford.
I can't anymore and feeling the wind is something I need so I pedal.
It is harder to head out as the weather has gotten colder but there is
technical clothing available that makes it comfortable.

I don't weigh myself yet (still too depressing) but my pants size has gone
down 4 inches in the
last four months. So has cholesterol, other blood factors and BP.
However I also took control of what I was eating so cycling was not the
whole regimen.

45 minutes a day is not going to be a big calorie burn by itself
and diet is always a more effective way to lose. But maybe lifestyle change
helps
in maintaining a diet and increasing the probability of success.
In my case always was daily is the key.

JP

Date: 15 Dec 2006 07:23:41
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Date: 14 Dec 2006 21:43:11
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
<ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote:
>I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding.
>This could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180
>minutes every 4 days and so on.
>
>This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
>weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
>that 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
>once each week?

I like the hard day, easy day routine. However, I think you're more
likely to keep it up if you try to ride every day. If I were in your
shoes, I'd try to start off with 45 minutes every day, until you can
do that easily. Then you might want to find 60 minute rides, and
alternate them with 30 minute rides. This also gives you some
flexibility to deal with weather.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:39:53
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Ernie Willson wrote:
> I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding.
> This could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180
> minutes every 4 days and so on.
>
> This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
> weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
> that 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
> once each week?
>
> TIA, EJ in NJ

Time on the bike is not the most important factor, effort (higher heart
rate) is.

If you spend 90 minutes on a bike at about 8mph you're not going to
burn much in the way of fat. Unless it's 8mph up hill. You could have
walked for 90 mins and had a better work out.

45 minutes at a good pace (a simple measure is to be breathing quickly,
but still able to hold a conversation) everyday, is your best bet. You
say you want to loose the weight and not get fit ( you may getter
fitter too), so you do not need any recovery time between work outs.
Getting fitter requires you to push yourself beyond your present
limits, exhausting muscles and hence requires recovery. You should be
riding within your fitness limits, but at a point where you start to
burn fat, about 75% of max heart rate (see a doctor first if you're
really unfit). Stretching after exercise helps in maintaining
flexibility and increases blood full. Don't bother stretching before or
any warm up. Get changed, jump on the bike and go.

Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
But if you only do that once a week it'll do almost nothing for you as
your body will just start storing the fat/energy it needs for the next
time you go ride.

Drink plenty of water.

Watch your diet, if you've been roughly the same weight for some time
on a pretty steady diet, don't change too much. Start exercising and
see what happens first. Then if nothing changes then drop or change one
item at a time, I've just switched to non-fat milk to see if that helps
me.

Using the gym bike as an example I'll spend 45-50 mins on the bike,
cover 25km, at a steady cadence of 105-110rpm, heart rate roughly
around 135-145bpm and usually end up burning around 700 calories
(according to the display on the bike). Oh, I'm 37 and 225 pounds.

Drink plenty of water.

Don't listen to me, talk to someone you trust. What works for me may
not work for you.

Laters,

z

Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:32:05
From: OzCableguy
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:26:23
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"OzCableguy" <OzCableguy@NOSPAMhotmail.com > wrote in
message news:92mgh.8299$HU.3626@news-server.bigpond.net.au
:: "Ernie Willson" <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote in message
:: news:45817f93$0$1607$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
::: days and so on.
:::
:::
::
:: Daily is best, but to make consistent gains in your
:: fitness, thereby improving your metabolism and fat
:: burning ability, you need to strive for improvement
:: pretty much every time you head out. HIIT training is
:: the perfect way to maximise results and only requires
:: 20- 40 minute sessions.
::

HIIT is very good for weight loss. One way to get this on a bike is to climb
hills and run your HR up (do downhill and on flats to let HR come down - the
active rest period). Do it repeatedly to get the intervals in. If you do it
right, 40 minutes will be too long, though! :)

:: I love this site - http://www.hussmanfitness.org
:: "The key to success - in anything - isn't extraordinary,
:: superhuman effort. It's daily action. You find a set of
:: actions that you believe will produce good results if
:: you follow them consistently, and then you follow them
:: consistently."

Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:37:17
From: SlowRider
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

My guess is, your best strategy is probably 90 minutes every 2 days.
This way you give your body a day inbetween to recover. Plus it gives
you some flexibility -- you can pick and choose which days you ride.
And, if you're a relatively new rider, 90 minutes isn't as daunting as
2-3 hours.

Actually, if you're a brand-new rider, I'd start with 45 minutes 3-4
days per week. Try that for a couple of weeks and if it feels good,
throw in a 90-minute session once a week. Then build up from there.

Good luck!

-JR

Date: 14 Dec 2006 19:01:40
From: sally
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

In article <45817f93$0$1607$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com >,
Ernie Willson <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote:
>This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
>weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
>that 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
>once each week?

I think longer rides are better since a good chunk of a short ride is
wasted on your warmup. If you can go all out for 2 hours, that would be
a good ride.

Date: 14 Dec 2006 19:44:40
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"sally" wrote: (clip) a good chunk of a short ride is wasted on your
warmup. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The calories expended during warmup count toward weight loss--they are not
"wasted." It's a very simple equation:
Calories in - calories out = weight gain (If the weight gain number is
negative, it's weight loss.)

Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:21:33
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson <ewillson@patmedia.net >
wrote:

>I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding.
>This could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180
>minutes every 4 days and so on.
>
>This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
>weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
>that 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
>once each week?
>
>TIA, EJ in NJ

Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar, binging), I have to hit
above 150miles/week at a modest tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to
achieve weight loss. Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational
levels.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set<@setnet.com > wrote:

> Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational
> levels.

That depends highy on the definiton on "recreational". Yesterday's
Saturday fun group ride was 55 miles, with 5000 feet of climbing. I
burned 2900 calories, or the equivalent of about 8/10ths of a pound
of fat.

It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per hour on a bike,
hour after hour.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com

Date: 17 Dec 2006 19:31:32
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net > wrote:

>Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational levels.
>
>That depends highy on the definiton on "recreational". Yesterday's
>Saturday fun group ride was 55 miles, with 5000 feet of climbing. I
>burned 2900 calories, or the equivalent of about 8/10ths of a pound
>of fat.
>
>It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per hour on a bike,
>hour after hour.

You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a bit optimistic.

For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100 miles is about 7 hours
per week. That's a commute of 8 miles each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10
on Sunday. By the 'book' that's about 4500 calories - for the entire week.

It should make a difference, but frequently, after the initial first few
months of riding this results in little additional weight loss. Not sure
why, but that's my experience. It's good for maintenance.

When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or 10-12 hrs per week, it
really starts to make a difference. That's about 6500-7200 calories/week,
if I've munged the numbers correctly. ;-)

Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:37:02
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:02:40 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It doesn't matter if you're a 350 lb NFL lineman who normally eats 5000
> >calories per day, or a 105 lb post-menopausal woman who maintains on 1500
> >calories per day. For weight loss, it's those few hundred calories above or
> >below your "balance point" that make all the difference.
>
> Understand. You can get this deficit by eating less or exercising more.

I remember, during coach's classes in June, I was chowing down on at
least 4000 calories per day and still losing weight.

On a day with a morning ride, first breakfast was dumplings.
Second breakfast was noodles.
Third breakfast (during class) was two bottles of yogurt and two hard
boiled eggs.
Lunch would be at least two bowls of rice, a meat dish, a tofu dish,
and a veg dish.
Afternoon snack would be about half a kilo of fruit.
Dinner would be approximately the same as lunch only with soup as well.
Evening snack would be the rest of the fruit (I usually buy a kilo at a
time).

On a day with an evening ride there was only the one breakfast.
Yogurt, eggs, and two fried donuts.
Same kind of lunch and afternoon snack.
Pre-ride I'd have dumplings and drink a coconut. If there was time I'd
eat the coconut meat too.
Post-ride I'd have my usual size dinner only with a third bowl of rice.
And the rest of the fruit.

-M

Date: 17 Dec 2006 20:56:02
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:kpmbo29i05lulh4gd9e8t4s1ac47dldu4d@4ax.com
:: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse
:: <tmorse@spamcop.net > wrote:
::
::: Set<@setnet.com > wrote:
:::
:::: Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational
:::: levels.
:::
::: That depends highy on the definiton on "recreational".
::: Yesterday's Saturday fun group ride was 55 miles, with
::: 5000 feet of climbing. I burned 2900 calories, or the
::: equivalent of about 8/10ths of a pound of fat.
:::
::: It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per hour
::: on a bike, hour after hour.
::
:: You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a bit
:: optimistic.
::
:: For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100 miles
:: is about 7 hours per week. That's a commute of 8 miles
:: each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10 on Sunday. By the
:: 'book' that's about 4500 calories - for the entire week.
::
:: It should make a difference, but frequently, after the
:: initial first few months of riding this results in
:: little additional weight loss. Not sure why, but that's
:: my experience. It's good for maintenance.

I told you why....your eating plus your required maintenance are such that
you're simply at equilibrium at your current riding level.

::
:: When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or 10-12
:: hrs per week, it really starts to make a difference.
:: That's about 6500-7200 calories/week, if I've munged the
:: numbers correctly. ;-)

Of course, now you've increased your activity to the point where you can see
weight loss rapidly enough to feel satisfied.

There is no mystery here. You seem to be good at counting the miles but not
counting the calories. Also, neither one (converting miles ridden to
calories burned and food eaten to calories consumed) is going to be 100%
accurate, so one must hunt around for what works in terms of calories burned
/ eaten and rate of loss in the scale. Implicit in all of this is
consistency and sticking with it long enough to see results.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 21:35:27
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:56:02 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
>news:kpmbo29i05lulh4gd9e8t4s1ac47dldu4d@4ax.com
>:: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse
>:: <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:
>::
>::: Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
>:::
>:::: Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational
>:::: levels.
>:::
>::: That depends highy on the definiton on "recreational".
>::: Yesterday's Saturday fun group ride was 55 miles, with
>::: 5000 feet of climbing. I burned 2900 calories, or the
>::: equivalent of about 8/10ths of a pound of fat.
>:::
>::: It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per hour
>::: on a bike, hour after hour.
>::
>:: You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a bit
>:: optimistic.
>::
>:: For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100 miles
>:: is about 7 hours per week. That's a commute of 8 miles
>:: each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10 on Sunday. By the
>:: 'book' that's about 4500 calories - for the entire week.
>::
>:: It should make a difference, but frequently, after the
>:: initial first few months of riding this results in
>:: little additional weight loss. Not sure why, but that's
>:: my experience. It's good for maintenance.
>
>I told you why....your eating plus your required maintenance are such that
>you're simply at equilibrium at your current riding level.

I think there's something else going on. For instance, it may be that as
you ride more, you get more efficient so that you actually get good at
minimizing caloric expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
is impacted in a way that food you eat is more efficiently utilized.

I wouldn't doubt there's weight loss occurring, but it may be too small,
given these other factors.

I'm not aware of any prodigious extra stuffing of the pie hole; honestly.

My point is, there are times and occasions when it is prodigiously hard to
lose weight, despite fairly strong efforts in both the dietary and exercise
department. I don't know if set point is still in vogue, but that was once
thought to be involved. Remember it's a very complex hormonal feedback
inhibition loop we're dealing with.

>:: When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or 10-12
>:: hrs per week, it really starts to make a difference.
>:: That's about 6500-7200 calories/week, if I've munged the
>:: numbers correctly. ;-)
>
>Of course, now you've increased your activity to the point where you can see
>weight loss rapidly enough to feel satisfied.
>
>There is no mystery here. You seem to be good at counting the miles but not
>counting the calories. Also, neither one (converting miles ridden to
>calories burned and food eaten to calories consumed) is going to be 100%
>accurate, so one must hunt around for what works in terms of calories burned
>/ eaten and rate of loss in the scale. Implicit in all of this is
>consistency and sticking with it long enough to see results.

You may think there's no 'mystery' but we've still not figured out the
whole thing. First thought to be controllable by leptin, now we have
ghrelin, peptide YY, NPY, CART, alpha-MSH and melanocortin, CKK all
involved in the biochemistry.

When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and over-50 runners, they
look different. Runners are lean. Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually
20-50lbs overweight).

Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I experience. Ymmv.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 15:58:28
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set<@setnet.com > wrote:

> When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and over-50 runners, they
> look different. Runners are lean. Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually
> 20-50lbs overweight).

Self selection. Tubular shaped runners don't make it to 50, they are
forced to quit long before then. Cycling lets you continue
competing, even as the body continues to age and the extra pounds
accumulate.

I know several Masters 50 cyclists who are pretty darn lean. Some
60s and 65s, too.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com

Date: 19 Dec 2006 19:21:38
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:58:28 -0800, Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net > wrote:

>Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
>
>> When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and over-50 runners, they
>> look different. Runners are lean. Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually
>> 20-50lbs overweight).
>
>Self selection. Tubular shaped runners don't make it to 50, they are
>forced to quit long before then. Cycling lets you continue
>competing, even as the body continues to age and the extra pounds
>accumulate.
>
>I know several Masters 50 cyclists who are pretty darn lean. Some
>60s and 65s, too.

Plus, Aero-Belly(tm)

Date: 18 Dec 2006 00:01:15
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:8pubo2d6o76g26v9a6k9mvq50im51nnrli@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:56:02 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:kpmbo29i05lulh4gd9e8t4s1ac47dldu4d@4ax.com
> >:: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse
> >:: <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >::
> >::: Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
> >:::
> >:::: Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational
> >:::: levels.
> >:::
> >::: That depends highy on the definiton on "recreational".
> >::: Yesterday's Saturday fun group ride was 55 miles, with
> >::: 5000 feet of climbing. I burned 2900 calories, or the
> >::: equivalent of about 8/10ths of a pound of fat.
> >:::
> >::: It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per hour
> >::: on a bike, hour after hour.
> >::
> >:: You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a bit
> >:: optimistic.
> >::
> >:: For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100 miles
> >:: is about 7 hours per week. That's a commute of 8 miles
> >:: each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10 on Sunday. By the
> >:: 'book' that's about 4500 calories - for the entire week.
> >::
> >:: It should make a difference, but frequently, after the
> >:: initial first few months of riding this results in
> >:: little additional weight loss. Not sure why, but that's
> >:: my experience. It's good for maintenance.
> >
> >I told you why....your eating plus your required maintenance are such
that
> >you're simply at equilibrium at your current riding level.
>
> I think there's something else going on. For instance, it may be that as
> you ride more, you get more efficient so that you actually get good at
> minimizing caloric expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
> is impacted in a way that food you eat is more efficiently utilized.
>
> I wouldn't doubt there's weight loss occurring, but it may be too small,
> given these other factors.
>
> I'm not aware of any prodigious extra stuffing of the pie hole; honestly.
>
> My point is, there are times and occasions when it is prodigiously hard to
> lose weight, despite fairly strong efforts in both the dietary and
exercise
> department. I don't know if set point is still in vogue, but that was once
> thought to be involved. Remember it's a very complex hormonal feedback
> inhibition loop we're dealing with.
>
> >:: When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or 10-12
> >:: hrs per week, it really starts to make a difference.
> >:: That's about 6500-7200 calories/week, if I've munged the
> >:: numbers correctly. ;-)
> >
> >Of course, now you've increased your activity to the point where you can
see
> >weight loss rapidly enough to feel satisfied.
> >
> >There is no mystery here. You seem to be good at counting the miles but
not
> >counting the calories. Also, neither one (converting miles ridden to
> >calories burned and food eaten to calories consumed) is going to be 100%
> >accurate, so one must hunt around for what works in terms of calories
burned
> >/ eaten and rate of loss in the scale. Implicit in all of this is
> >consistency and sticking with it long enough to see results.
>
> You may think there's no 'mystery' but we've still not figured out the
> whole thing. First thought to be controllable by leptin, now we have
> ghrelin, peptide YY, NPY, CART, alpha-MSH and melanocortin, CKK all
> involved in the biochemistry.
>
> When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and over-50 runners, they
> look different. Runners are lean. Masters cyclists are tubular (and
usually
> 20-50lbs overweight).

Either you live in one of the fat cities (Houston, Cincinnati, etc.), or you
ride at the back in the Smoking Section.

Out here in California, there's plenty of lean hard-bodied cyclists in their
50's and beyond.

It's true that you'll typically see more overweight cyclists than runners
(especially at the back), but that's because cycling is an activity that
overweight folks can participate in...unlike running which beats up your
joints.

GG

>
> Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I experience. Ymmv.
>
>

Date: 17 Dec 2006 23:21:07
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:8pubo2d6o76g26v9a6k9mvq50im51nnrli@4ax.com
:: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:56:02 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::
::: "Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
::: news:kpmbo29i05lulh4gd9e8t4s1ac47dldu4d@4ax.com
::::: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse
::::: <tmorse@spamcop.net > wrote:
:::::
:::::: Set<@setnet.com > wrote:
::::::
::::::: Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational
::::::: levels.
::::::
:::::: That depends highy on the definiton on
:::::: "recreational". Yesterday's Saturday fun group ride
:::::: was 55 miles, with 5000 feet of climbing. I burned
:::::: 2900 calories, or the equivalent of about 8/10ths of
:::::: a pound of fat.
::::::
:::::: It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per hour
:::::: on a bike, hour after hour.
:::::
::::: You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a bit
::::: optimistic.
:::::
::::: For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100
::::: miles is about 7 hours per week. That's a commute of
::::: 8 miles each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10 on
::::: Sunday. By the 'book' that's about 4500 calories -
::::: for the entire week.
:::::
::::: It should make a difference, but frequently, after the
::::: initial first few months of riding this results in
::::: little additional weight loss. Not sure why, but
::::: that's my experience. It's good for maintenance.
:::
::: I told you why....your eating plus your required
::: maintenance are such that you're simply at equilibrium
::: at your current riding level.
::
:: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
:: it may be that as you ride more, you get more efficient
:: so that you actually get good at minimizing caloric
:: expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
:: is impacted in a way that food you eat is more
:: efficiently utilized.

Or, you've just reached equilibrium.

::
:: I wouldn't doubt there's weight loss occurring, but it
:: may be too small, given these other factors.
::
:: I'm not aware of any prodigious extra stuffing of the
:: pie hole; honestly.

This would cause weight gain...you are simply not losing, so you have
gavitated over time to a steady state.

::
:: My point is, there are times and occasions when it is
:: prodigiously hard to lose weight, despite fairly strong
:: efforts in both the dietary and exercise department. I
:: don't know if set point is still in vogue, but that was
:: once thought to be involved. Remember it's a very
:: complex hormonal feedback inhibition loop we're dealing
:: with.
::
::::: When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or
::::: 10-12 hrs per week, it really starts to make a
::::: difference. That's about 6500-7200 calories/week, if
::::: I've munged the numbers correctly. ;-)
:::
::: Of course, now you've increased your activity to the
::: point where you can see weight loss rapidly enough to
::: feel satisfied.
:::
::: There is no mystery here. You seem to be good at
::: counting the miles but not counting the calories. Also,
::: neither one (converting miles ridden to calories burned
::: and food eaten to calories consumed) is going to be
::: 100% accurate, so one must hunt around for what works
::: in terms of calories burned / eaten and rate of loss in
::: the scale. Implicit in all of this is consistency and
::: sticking with it long enough to see results.
::
:: You may think there's no 'mystery' but we've still not
:: figured out the whole thing. First thought to be
:: controllable by leptin, now we have ghrelin, peptide YY,
:: NPY, CART, alpha-MSH and melanocortin, CKK all involved
:: in the biochemistry.
::
:: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
:: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are lean.
:: Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually 20-50lbs
:: overweight).
::

Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so because they are lean
(ie, lighter), and those who cycle tend to do so because they are heavier?
Running is much more higher impact than cycling, so the sports tend to
self-select according to body types. A heavy runner just isn't going to last
long. Not so in cycling.

All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide execuses. People are
willing to pay to have researchers tell them it's not their fault.

:: Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I
:: experience. Ymmv.

I believe you are offering your experience, but I see no indication that you
are careful in tracking intake/expenditure.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 01:17:00
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:21:07 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>:: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
>:: it may be that as you ride more, you get more efficient
>:: so that you actually get good at minimizing caloric
>:: expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
>:: is impacted in a way that food you eat is more
>:: efficiently utilized.
>
>Or, you've just reached equilibrium.

Let me put it this way. Take a beginner cyclist, have him ride a certain
course. Take an experienced cyclist, and have him ride the same course.
Both have equivalent fitness (perhaps the cyclist got his fitness in
triathlons).

I think you'll find the experienced cyclist can ride the same course in a
similar time but his energy output would be less, due to superior handling,
aerodynamics, pedaling ability, and other intangibles. His caloric output
could be 5-10% less than the beginner. (just guessing).

This may be what's happening with most people. A course and program that is
strenuous for the first three to six months is no longer causing enough
energy expenditure to allow continued weight loss due to gains in
efficiency.

>:: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
>:: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are lean.
>:: Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually 20-50lbs
>:: overweight).
>
>Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so because they are lean
>(ie, lighter), and those who cycle tend to do so because they are heavier?
>Running is much more higher impact than cycling, so the sports tend to
>self-select according to body types. A heavy runner just isn't going to last
>long. Not so in cycling.

Certainly possible, but it seems to be reaching.

>All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide execuses. People are
>willing to pay to have researchers tell them it's not their fault.

Excuses? What the heck are you talking about. I haven't offered anything as
an excuse.

>:: Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I experience. Ymmv.
>
>I believe you are offering your experience, but I see no indication that you
>are careful in tracking intake/expenditure.

What difference does that make? I've got page after page of tracking of
distance, time, nutrition in a spreadsheet.

Let's put it this way. You want to lose weight? Fine. Riding a bike may not
be the most expeditious way of doing that past the first 3-6 month period
and may require a minimum of 10 hours per week of riding. I lost weight by
running about 40-45 min, three to four times per week. That's about 3 hours
per week. At that time I was a lot less careful with my diet as well.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:54:17
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set wrote:
:: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:21:07 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::
::::: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
::::: it may be that as you ride more, you get more efficient
::::: so that you actually get good at minimizing caloric
::::: expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
::::: is impacted in a way that food you eat is more
::::: efficiently utilized.
:::
::: Or, you've just reached equilibrium.
::
:: Let me put it this way. Take a beginner cyclist, have him ride a
:: certain course. Take an experienced cyclist, and have him ride the
:: same course. Both have equivalent fitness (perhaps the cyclist got
:: his fitness in triathlons).
::
:: I think you'll find the experienced cyclist can ride the same course
:: in a similar time but his energy output would be less, due to
:: superior handling, aerodynamics, pedaling ability, and other
:: intangibles. His caloric output could be 5-10% less than the
:: beginner. (just guessing).

Yeah, so? That has relatively little to do with weight loss as the obvious
solution is to either eat 5-10% less food or burn more calories. Such
efficieny gain is inherent in improving fitness in any sporting activity.
It's why we train. So to single out cycling in this way is useless.

::
:: This may be what's happening with most people. A course and program
:: that is strenuous for the first three to six months is no longer
:: causing enough energy expenditure to allow continued weight loss due
:: to gains in efficiency.

Why do you equate "strenuous" with weight loss. Exercise need not be
strenuous to produce weight loss. If you move your body X distance it will
take Y amount of energy. That's the bottom line. And most exercise
activities can be made "strenuous" if you do them correctly.

Another issue here is that you're assuming that people who do these
activities have a desire for weight loss. It doesn't happen autamatically
because people tend to increase food consumption after doing significant
exercise, unless the make a dedicated effort not to.

It would also seem that you expect us to accept your data (n=1) as some
reason to classify cycling as ineffective for weight loss.

::
::::: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
::::: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are lean.
::::: Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually 20-50lbs
::::: overweight).
:::
::: Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so because they
::: are lean (ie, lighter), and those who cycle tend to do so because
::: they are heavier? Running is much more higher impact than cycling,
::: so the sports tend to self-select according to body types. A heavy
::: runner just isn't going to last long. Not so in cycling.
::
:: Certainly possible, but it seems to be reaching.

It's not reaching at all really. Look at any sport and see what type of
people participate. Rarely, if ever, do you see any really fat person doing
most of those activities. Not because they can't, but because they choose
not to.

There are certain activities, I grant you, that will tend to help a person
get lean. Those which involve high intensity exercise (HIIT), that run the
heart rate up near maximal levels. Perhaps you should consider spending some
of your cycling time in riding up hills as fast as you can, alternating
intervals of high intensity and low. This will produce a "lean-body"
promoting afterburn that can help with weight loss. the advantage here is
that you don't need to increase your miles or time. You force your body to
use more power rather than more energy during an exercise period. This
forces a higher metabolism during a period as long as 12 hours after the
exercise period. It will generally also produce an endorphin high as well.
Any kind of sprint on a bike that drives the heart rate up to similarly high
levels will work as well. Personally, I think hills are much better as it
may be hard to find a good place to sprint on local roads unless you have
competition you may not go that hard.

::
::: All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide execuses.
::: People are willing to pay to have researchers tell them it's not
::: their fault.
::
:: Excuses? What the heck are you talking about. I haven't offered
:: anything as an excuse.
::

That's what it sounds like when you make these comments such as "cycling
isn't strenuous enough to produce weight loss in recreational riders." It's
nonsense.

::::: Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I experience.
::::: Ymmv.
:::
::: I believe you are offering your experience, but I see no indication
::: that you are careful in tracking intake/expenditure.
::
:: What difference does that make? I've got page after page of tracking
:: of distance, time, nutrition in a spreadsheet.

It makes a huge difference if you really aren't doing things right. Even if
you have tracking info, the question then becomes are you reducing calorie
intake enough to produce a calorie deficit. The overwhelming answer here is
no, since you making these claims about how cycling hasn't helped you
achieve the weight loss you want. You mentioned "near starvation" in
another post. I find that hard to believe.

::
:: Let's put it this way. You want to lose weight? Fine. Riding a bike
:: may not be the most expeditious way of doing that past the first 3-6
:: month period and may require a minimum of 10 hours per week of
:: riding. I lost weight by running about 40-45 min, three to four
:: times per week. That's about 3 hours per week. At that time I was a
:: lot less careful with my diet as well.

Once again, this comment makes little sense, since you made no reference to
how one rides the bike to produce weight loss. I have a nice hill near my
house with I can promise will deliver the same results as your running, with
similar investment in time.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 11:13:52
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:54:17 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>:: I think you'll find the experienced cyclist can ride the same course
>:: in a similar time but his energy output would be less, due to
>:: superior handling, aerodynamics, pedaling ability, and other
>:: intangibles. His caloric output could be 5-10% less than the
>:: beginner. (just guessing).
>
>Yeah, so? That has relatively little to do with weight loss as the obvious
>solution is to either eat 5-10% less food or burn more calories. Such
>efficieny gain is inherent in improving fitness in any sporting activity.
>It's why we train. So to single out cycling in this way is useless.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I said the caloric expenditure
given to cycling on the charts is probably quite optimistic. I think it's
quite a bit less than that. Thus it's not going to be enough to produce
continued weight loss. I believe the charts refer to basic riding, on the
flat, moderate wind, etc.

>:: This may be what's happening with most people. A course and program
>:: that is strenuous for the first three to six months is no longer
>:: causing enough energy expenditure to allow continued weight loss due
>:: to gains in efficiency.
>
>Why do you equate "strenuous" with weight loss. Exercise need not be
>strenuous to produce weight loss. If you move your body X distance it will
>take Y amount of energy. That's the bottom line. And most exercise
>activities can be made "strenuous" if you do them correctly.

Take a beginner. Let him cycle five miles on the flat, moderate wind. It
will be quite strenuous. As he learns to get more efficient on the bike
this course will no longer be strenuous. Make it ten miles. At first
strenuous. Within a few weeks or months, it will no longer be strenuous as
he adapts.

>Another issue here is that you're assuming that people who do these
>activities have a desire for weight loss. It doesn't happen autamatically
>because people tend to increase food consumption after doing significant
>exercise, unless the make a dedicated effort not to.
>
>It would also seem that you expect us to accept your data (n=1) as some
>reason to classify cycling as ineffective for weight loss.

Not acceptance. Merely a caution. Don't expect cycling to be a very good
weight loss program after the first three to six months, unless you get
significantly about 100miles/week on the flat.

>::::: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
>::::: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are lean.
>::::: Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually 20-50lbs
>::::: overweight).
>:::
>::: Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so because they
>::: are lean (ie, lighter), and those who cycle tend to do so because
>::: they are heavier? Running is much more higher impact than cycling,
>::: so the sports tend to self-select according to body types. A heavy
>::: runner just isn't going to last long. Not so in cycling.
>::
>:: Certainly possible, but it seems to be reaching.
>
>It's not reaching at all really. Look at any sport and see what type of
>people participate. Rarely, if ever, do you see any really fat person doing
>most of those activities. Not because they can't, but because they choose
>not to.
>
>There are certain activities, I grant you, that will tend to help a person
>get lean.

So you -do- understand my point. ;-)

>Those which involve high intensity exercise (HIIT), that run the
>heart rate up near maximal levels. Perhaps you should consider spending some
>of your cycling time in riding up hills as fast as you can, alternating
>intervals of high intensity and low.

Huh? High intensity (and so short duration) will lead to weight loss?

My comment was that for me and maybe others, riding 5-7 hrs per week is not
going to lead to continuous weight loss, if the diet is held about the
same. You're talking about only expending ~4,000 calories per week after
you become efficient at cycling. ON THE FLATS.

>::: All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide execuses.
>::: People are willing to pay to have researchers tell them it's not
>::: their fault.
>::
>:: Excuses? What the heck are you talking about. I haven't offered
>:: anything as an excuse.
>::
>
>That's what it sounds like when you make these comments such as "cycling
>isn't strenuous enough to produce weight loss in recreational riders." It's
>nonsense.

I don't think it's nonsense at all. You're an example. You -say- it's
because you don't want to lose any weight. But you've been cycling high
mileage for what, five years or more? You're still 20-30lbs overweight,
maybe close to 50 over the ideal weight for your height. And at your
current level of riding you will remain so, despite any change of heart
about 'wanting to lose more weight'.

Why not try an experiment. Up your riding from 80-100 miles a week to
140-150 per week for three months. See if you don't drop about 25lbs -
whether you want to or not.

I think there's two effects at work above ~130-150 miles/week. One is
appetite suppression. The other is just caloric expenditure reaches a
threshold level.

Riding the same amount that you are riding now, and eating the same, in
five years you will have gained about 10-15lbs, being in your 40s. (That's
100 calories per week less efficient metabolism.)

>:: Let's put it this way. You want to lose weight? Fine. Riding a bike
>:: may not be the most expeditious way of doing that past the first 3-6
>:: month period and may require a minimum of 10 hours per week of
>:: riding. I lost weight by running about 40-45 min, three to four
>:: times per week. That's about 3 hours per week. At that time I was a
>:: lot less careful with my diet as well.
>
>Once again, this comment makes little sense, since you made no reference to
>how one rides the bike to produce weight loss. I have a nice hill near my
>house with I can promise will deliver the same results as your running, with
>similar investment in time.

I said 'riding a bike on the flat for under 100 miles per week is not that
effective for weight loss past the first three to six months.' I stand by
my point.

If you put 1/2 to 3/4 the amount of time and effort into running, a more
reliable and continuous way of losing weight.

I'd say among sports and activities that promote continuous weight loss:

Running, rowing, nordic skiing - effective ways to lose weight.
Cycling on the flats - less effective way, requiring about 10hrs per week
after the first three to six months to continue to lose weight.

I think many people expect to be able to continue losing weight by cycling
and after the first few months are disappointed. I'm offering some reasons
why.

When I was running I was not trying to lose weight. In fact still being
into weight training, I wanted to keep around 185lbs. Without wanting to,
without changing my diet, running 5miles/day, four days per week, I lost
weight down to under 170 in about six months, and from there it leveled
off.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:45:47
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:u7edo2d8qvbqvrflk41lbtn3rn0u2cu0oi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:54:17 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >:: I think you'll find the experienced cyclist can ride the same course
> >:: in a similar time but his energy output would be less, due to
> >:: superior handling, aerodynamics, pedaling ability, and other
> >:: intangibles. His caloric output could be 5-10% less than the
> >:: beginner. (just guessing).
> >
> >Yeah, so? That has relatively little to do with weight loss as the
obvious
> >solution is to either eat 5-10% less food or burn more calories. Such
> >efficieny gain is inherent in improving fitness in any sporting activity.
> >It's why we train. So to single out cycling in this way is useless.
>
> You're not listening to what I'm saying. I said the caloric expenditure
> given to cycling on the charts is probably quite optimistic. I think it's
> quite a bit less than that. Thus it's not going to be enough to produce
> continued weight loss. I believe the charts refer to basic riding, on the
> flat, moderate wind, etc.
>
> >:: This may be what's happening with most people. A course and program
> >:: that is strenuous for the first three to six months is no longer
> >:: causing enough energy expenditure to allow continued weight loss due
> >:: to gains in efficiency.
> >
> >Why do you equate "strenuous" with weight loss. Exercise need not be
> >strenuous to produce weight loss. If you move your body X distance it
will
> >take Y amount of energy. That's the bottom line. And most exercise
> >activities can be made "strenuous" if you do them correctly.
>
> Take a beginner. Let him cycle five miles on the flat, moderate wind. It
> will be quite strenuous. As he learns to get more efficient on the bike
> this course will no longer be strenuous. Make it ten miles. At first
> strenuous. Within a few weeks or months, it will no longer be strenuous as
> he adapts.
>
> >Another issue here is that you're assuming that people who do these
> >activities have a desire for weight loss. It doesn't happen
autamatically
> >because people tend to increase food consumption after doing significant
> >exercise, unless the make a dedicated effort not to.
> >
> >It would also seem that you expect us to accept your data (n=1) as some
> >reason to classify cycling as ineffective for weight loss.
>
> Not acceptance. Merely a caution. Don't expect cycling to be a very good
> weight loss program after the first three to six months, unless you get
> significantly about 100miles/week on the flat.
>
> >::::: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
> >::::: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are lean.
> >::::: Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually 20-50lbs
> >::::: overweight).
> >:::
> >::: Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so because they
> >::: are lean (ie, lighter), and those who cycle tend to do so because
> >::: they are heavier? Running is much more higher impact than cycling,
> >::: so the sports tend to self-select according to body types. A heavy
> >::: runner just isn't going to last long. Not so in cycling.
> >::
> >:: Certainly possible, but it seems to be reaching.
> >
> >It's not reaching at all really. Look at any sport and see what type of
> >people participate. Rarely, if ever, do you see any really fat person
doing
> >most of those activities. Not because they can't, but because they
choose
> >not to.
> >
> >There are certain activities, I grant you, that will tend to help a
person
> >get lean.
>
> So you -do- understand my point. ;-)
>
> >Those which involve high intensity exercise (HIIT), that run the
> >heart rate up near maximal levels. Perhaps you should consider spending
some
> >of your cycling time in riding up hills as fast as you can, alternating
> >intervals of high intensity and low.
>
> Huh? High intensity (and so short duration) will lead to weight loss?
>
> My comment was that for me and maybe others, riding 5-7 hrs per week is
not
> going to lead to continuous weight loss, if the diet is held about the
> same. You're talking about only expending ~4,000 calories per week after
> you become efficient at cycling. ON THE FLATS.
>
> >::: All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide execuses.
> >::: People are willing to pay to have researchers tell them it's not
> >::: their fault.
> >::
> >:: Excuses? What the heck are you talking about. I haven't offered
> >:: anything as an excuse.
> >::
> >
> >That's what it sounds like when you make these comments such as "cycling
> >isn't strenuous enough to produce weight loss in recreational riders."
It's
> >nonsense.
>
> I don't think it's nonsense at all.

Of course it is...you have absolutely no data to back up your silly
assertions (other than the fact that you yourself cannot seem to lose weight
via recreational cycling). Plenty of people manange to lose weight with
low-intensity activities like walking...just because you can't doesn't mean
that cycling is not a very good way to burn a lot of calories.

FWIW, I've averaged about 90 miles per week this year, and weigh 168 lbs, at
6' tall and 54 years of age. It's not rocket science, and the basic
scientific studies on cycling's effect on calories burned have not been
called into question.

The fact is, you could easily lose weight while riding 90 miles per
week...if you're not, you just need to find a few hundred calories each day
to omit from your pie hole.

GG

> You're an example. You -say- it's
> because you don't want to lose any weight. But you've been cycling high
> mileage for what, five years or more? You're still 20-30lbs overweight,
> maybe close to 50 over the ideal weight for your height. And at your
> current level of riding you will remain so, despite any change of heart
> about 'wanting to lose more weight'.
>
> Why not try an experiment. Up your riding from 80-100 miles a week to
> 140-150 per week for three months. See if you don't drop about 25lbs -
> whether you want to or not.
>
> I think there's two effects at work above ~130-150 miles/week. One is
> appetite suppression. The other is just caloric expenditure reaches a
> threshold level.
>
> Riding the same amount that you are riding now, and eating the same, in
> five years you will have gained about 10-15lbs, being in your 40s. (That's
> 100 calories per week less efficient metabolism.)
>
> >:: Let's put it this way. You want to lose weight? Fine. Riding a bike
> >:: may not be the most expeditious way of doing that past the first 3-6
> >:: month period and may require a minimum of 10 hours per week of
> >:: riding. I lost weight by running about 40-45 min, three to four
> >:: times per week. That's about 3 hours per week. At that time I was a
> >:: lot less careful with my diet as well.
> >
> >Once again, this comment makes little sense, since you made no reference
to
> >how one rides the bike to produce weight loss. I have a nice hill near
my
> >house with I can promise will deliver the same results as your running,
with
> >similar investment in time.
>
> I said 'riding a bike on the flat for under 100 miles per week is not that
> effective for weight loss past the first three to six months.' I stand by
> my point.
>
> If you put 1/2 to 3/4 the amount of time and effort into running, a more
> reliable and continuous way of losing weight.
>
> I'd say among sports and activities that promote continuous weight loss:
>
> Running, rowing, nordic skiing - effective ways to lose weight.
> Cycling on the flats - less effective way, requiring about 10hrs per week
> after the first three to six months to continue to lose weight.
>
> I think many people expect to be able to continue losing weight by cycling
> and after the first few months are disappointed. I'm offering some reasons
> why.
>
> When I was running I was not trying to lose weight. In fact still being
> into weight training, I wanted to keep around 185lbs. Without wanting to,
> without changing my diet, running 5miles/day, four days per week, I lost
> weight down to under 170 in about six months, and from there it leveled
> off.
>
>

Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:53:30
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:45:47 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>The fact is, you could easily lose weight while riding 90 miles per
>week...if you're not, you just need to find a few hundred calories each day
>to omit from your pie hole.
>
>GG

What's a typical day's worth of food for you?

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:43:41
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:ltvdo2hsnoagkr97s94mh537smeeev1r88@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:45:47 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The fact is, you could easily lose weight while riding 90 miles per
> >week...if you're not, you just need to find a few hundred calories each
day
> >to omit from your pie hole.
> >
> >GG
>
> What's a typical day's worth of food for you?
>
>

I have no real idea...although I think it's useful to understand the calorie
content of what we consume, keeping a detailed log of everything I eat is,
for me, too time-consuming.

Instead, I closely monitor my weight, and just focus on:

1) eating healthy foods (fruits, veggies, etc.).

2) not eating too much junk

3) eating appropriate portions (this is where many people fail in their diet
efforts...our portion sizes are completely out of whack).

If my weight starts to creep up, I simply make an effort to cut back a
little bit (e.g., smaller portions, less snacks, etc.). It only takes a
shift of a few hundred calories per day to switch from weight gain mode to
weight loss mode. Within a week or so, my weight usually starts back down
and I'm back to where I want to be (closer to 170 in the winter, and closer
to 165 in the summer).

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Computer-Assisted Weight Management

Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:02:27
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

>>>>>If my weight starts to creep up, I simply make an effort to cut back a
little bit (e.g., smaller portions, less snacks, etc.). It only takes a
shift of a few hundred calories per day to switch from weight gain mode to
weight loss mode. Within a week or so, my weight usually starts back down
and I'm back to where I want to be (closer to 170 in the winter, and closer
to 165 in the summer).<<<

I agree. It is somewhat more complex when you know that the first 5lbs is
water coming off. So the fewer calories a day just makes your body work
harder at letting you survive and the water is the waste product when you
burn calories.
That and CO2 out of your lungs.
I wonder what a heat image while exercising would tell us about fast and
hard versus long and slow twitch muscles?
I'll tell you tomorrow if I can find it.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 22:22:24
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:02:27 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:

>>>>>>If my weight starts to creep up, I simply make an effort to cut back a
>little bit (e.g., smaller portions, less snacks, etc.). It only takes a
>shift of a few hundred calories per day to switch from weight gain mode to
>weight loss mode. Within a week or so, my weight usually starts back down
>and I'm back to where I want to be (closer to 170 in the winter, and closer
>to 165 in the summer).<<<
>
>I agree. It is somewhat more complex when you know that the first 5lbs is
>water coming off. So the fewer calories a day just makes your body work
>harder at letting you survive and the water is the waste product when you
>burn calories.
>That and CO2 out of your lungs.
>I wonder what a heat image while exercising would tell us about fast and
>hard versus long and slow twitch muscles?
>I'll tell you tomorrow if I can find it.
>

Uh, I'm not able to follow you. By far the most amount of weight lost is
due to water, water vapor, exhaled gasses, heating the body.

In general, iirc, you eat food and it's metabolized into heat and energy
plus C02 and water vapor. Then there's some solid waste. When you burn off
stored fat you also get mainly C02 and water vapor.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 05:50:45
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:ajmeo25b5tu8igfe6ld42b62ja323o46qf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:02:27 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>If my weight starts to creep up, I simply make an effort to cut back
>>>>>>>a
>>little bit (e.g., smaller portions, less snacks, etc.). It only takes a
>>shift of a few hundred calories per day to switch from weight gain mode to
>>weight loss mode. Within a week or so, my weight usually starts back down
>>and I'm back to where I want to be (closer to 170 in the winter, and
>>closer
>>to 165 in the summer).<<<
>>
>>I agree. It is somewhat more complex when you know that the first 5lbs is
>>water coming off. So the fewer calories a day just makes your body work
>>harder at letting you survive and the water is the waste product when you
>>burn calories.
>>That and CO2 out of your lungs.
>>I wonder what a heat image while exercising would tell us about fast and
>>hard versus long and slow twitch muscles?
>>I'll tell you tomorrow if I can find it.
>>
>
> Uh, I'm not able to follow you. By far the most amount of weight lost is
> due to water, water vapor, exhaled gasses, heating the body.
>
> In general, iirc, you eat food and it's metabolized into heat and energy
> plus C02 and water vapor. Then there's some solid waste. When you burn off
> stored fat you also get mainly C02 and water vapor.
>

I was going by CO2 and H2O as waste products of burning energy in the cell
so I assumed it would go to the blood and yeah evaporate on the skin or go
to your kidneys. I am not sure about the ratio of each.
>

Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:48:05
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:43:41 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
>news:ltvdo2hsnoagkr97s94mh537smeeev1r88@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:45:47 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The fact is, you could easily lose weight while riding 90 miles per
>> >week...if you're not, you just need to find a few hundred calories each
>day
>> >to omit from your pie hole.
>> >
>> >GG
>>
>> What's a typical day's worth of food for you?
>>
>>
>
>I have no real idea...although I think it's useful to understand the calorie
>content of what we consume, keeping a detailed log of everything I eat is,
>for me, too time-consuming.
>
>Instead, I closely monitor my weight, and just focus on:
>
>1) eating healthy foods (fruits, veggies, etc.).
>
>2) not eating too much junk
>
>3) eating appropriate portions (this is where many people fail in their diet
>efforts...our portion sizes are completely out of whack).
>
>If my weight starts to creep up, I simply make an effort to cut back a
>little bit (e.g., smaller portions, less snacks, etc.). It only takes a
>shift of a few hundred calories per day to switch from weight gain mode to
>weight loss mode. Within a week or so, my weight usually starts back down
>and I'm back to where I want to be (closer to 170 in the winter, and closer
>to 165 in the summer).
>
>GG
>http://www.WeightWare.com
>Computer-Assisted Weight Management

So can't even give a ball-park idea? Can't remember what you ate today?

If, for instance you say 'one hardboiled egg for breakfast, cottage cheese
for dinner and a half a pear for dinner', then I understand where you're
coming from.

Do you at least know your target calorie count per day for maintanence.
Somewhere around 2000 calories?

I see you have a weight mgmt computer program.

Just curious.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:02:40
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:30heo2dstohvqa6ou2so4i9ctvfpujnr8g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:43:41 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:ltvdo2hsnoagkr97s94mh537smeeev1r88@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:45:47 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The fact is, you could easily lose weight while riding 90 miles per
> >> >week...if you're not, you just need to find a few hundred calories
each
> >day
> >> >to omit from your pie hole.
> >> >
> >> >GG
> >>
> >> What's a typical day's worth of food for you?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I have no real idea...although I think it's useful to understand the
calorie
> >content of what we consume, keeping a detailed log of everything I eat
is,
> >for me, too time-consuming.
> >
> >Instead, I closely monitor my weight, and just focus on:
> >
> >1) eating healthy foods (fruits, veggies, etc.).
> >
> >2) not eating too much junk
> >
> >3) eating appropriate portions (this is where many people fail in their
diet
> >efforts...our portion sizes are completely out of whack).
> >
> >If my weight starts to creep up, I simply make an effort to cut back a
> >little bit (e.g., smaller portions, less snacks, etc.). It only takes a
> >shift of a few hundred calories per day to switch from weight gain mode
to
> >weight loss mode. Within a week or so, my weight usually starts back down
> >and I'm back to where I want to be (closer to 170 in the winter, and
closer
> >to 165 in the summer).
> >
> >GG
> >http://www.WeightWare.com
> >Computer-Assisted Weight Management
>
> So can't even give a ball-park idea? Can't remember what you ate today?
>
> If, for instance you say 'one hardboiled egg for breakfast, cottage cheese
> for dinner and a half a pear for dinner', then I understand where you're
> coming from.

For today:

For breakfast : 1/3 cup of granola, 1/3 cup of oat bran, 1/3 cup fat-free
dry milk, small scoop of whey protein powder, 12 raw almonds, and about 1/2
cup of frozen blackberries. Rough guess - 500-600 calories.

For lunch: 1 small frozen burrito (250 calories), plus 1 apple, plus 1 small
piece of Boston Cream Pie (from my birthday earlier this week...not
typical), 1 small can of V-8. Rough guess - 500 calories.

Snacks - 1 banana, 1 tootsie roll (200 calories).

For dinner - a salad and 3 slices of pizza (at a board meeting for my bike
club). Rough guess 600-800 calories.

After dinner, I'll probably have a glass of wine at my girlfriend's house,
for another 100 calories.

So, overall - probably somewhere in the 2200-2500 calories range.

But, it really doesn't matter, because it's the "energy balance" number
that's important.

If my weight starts to creep up, I just make some minor changes...for
example, smaller cereal portions, no cake, and no tootsie roll would easily
cut out 400+ calories from today's intake.

It doesn't matter if you're a 350 lb NFL lineman who normally eats 5000
calories per day, or a 105 lb post-menopausal woman who maintains on 1500
calories per day. For weight loss, it's those few hundred calories above or
below your "balance point" that make all the difference.

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Computer-Assisted Weight Management

>
> Do you at least know your target calorie count per day for maintanence.
> Somewhere around 2000 calories?
>
> I see you have a weight mgmt computer program.
>
> Just curious.
>
>

Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:30:07
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:02:40 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>It doesn't matter if you're a 350 lb NFL lineman who normally eats 5000
>calories per day, or a 105 lb post-menopausal woman who maintains on 1500
>calories per day. For weight loss, it's those few hundred calories above or
>below your "balance point" that make all the difference.

Understand. You can get this deficit by eating less or exercising more.

Here's my food today (not that you asked):

Breakfast: Bowl of homemade meatballs (8-10). Coffee w/ cream.
Snack: 20 almonds, 1/4 cup pumpkin seeds.

Lunch : Five steak cubes. 1"x1". Two cups coffee w/ cream.
Snack: two tblsp of crunchy p-nut butter.

Dinner: One lg. lambchop, 20 almonds.
Snack: Popcorn.

(Low Dairy day - no extra milk besides coffee cream).

Exercise: None - recovering from flu. (Rode 10 miles yesterday at 18mph avg
speed).

No idea what the calorie count is but it must be about 2500-3000.

>GG
>http://www.WeightWare.com
>Computer-Assisted Weight Management
>
>>
>> Do you at least know your target calorie count per day for maintanence.
>> Somewhere around 2000 calories?
>>
>> I see you have a weight mgmt computer program.
>>
>> Just curious.
>>

Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:52:27
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:6ejeo2he4pokqc5th1smbnii3s8ol6g7tk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:02:40 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It doesn't matter if you're a 350 lb NFL lineman who normally eats 5000
> >calories per day, or a 105 lb post-menopausal woman who maintains on 1500
> >calories per day. For weight loss, it's those few hundred calories above
or
> >below your "balance point" that make all the difference.
>
> Understand. You can get this deficit by eating less or exercising more.
>
> Here's my food today (not that you asked):
>
> Breakfast: Bowl of homemade meatballs (8-10). Coffee w/ cream.
> Snack: 20 almonds, 1/4 cup pumpkin seeds.
>
> Lunch : Five steak cubes. 1"x1". Two cups coffee w/ cream.
> Snack: two tblsp of crunchy p-nut butter.
>
> Dinner: One lg. lambchop, 20 almonds.
> Snack: Popcorn.
>
> (Low Dairy day - no extra milk besides coffee cream).
>
> Exercise: None - recovering from flu. (Rode 10 miles yesterday at 18mph
avg
> speed).
>
> No idea what the calorie count is but it must be about 2500-3000.

No fruit, and no vegetables? Sounds "unbalanced" to me.

GG

>
>
>
> >GG
> >http://www.WeightWare.com
> >Computer-Assisted Weight Management
> >
> >>
> >> Do you at least know your target calorie count per day for maintanence.
> >> Somewhere around 2000 calories?
> >>
> >> I see you have a weight mgmt computer program.
> >>
> >> Just curious.
> >>
>

Date: 19 Dec 2006 10:30:28
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:52:27 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
>news:6ejeo2he4pokqc5th1smbnii3s8ol6g7tk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:02:40 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It doesn't matter if you're a 350 lb NFL lineman who normally eats 5000
>> >calories per day, or a 105 lb post-menopausal woman who maintains on 1500
>> >calories per day. For weight loss, it's those few hundred calories above
>or
>> >below your "balance point" that make all the difference.
>>
>> Understand. You can get this deficit by eating less or exercising more.
>>
>> Here's my food today (not that you asked):
>>
>> Breakfast: Bowl of homemade meatballs (8-10). Coffee w/ cream.
>> Snack: 20 almonds, 1/4 cup pumpkin seeds.
>>
>> Lunch : Five steak cubes. 1"x1". Two cups coffee w/ cream.
>> Snack: two tblsp of crunchy p-nut butter.
>>
>> Dinner: One lg. lambchop, 20 almonds.
>> Snack: Popcorn.
>>
>> (Low Dairy day - no extra milk besides coffee cream).
>>
>> Exercise: None - recovering from flu. (Rode 10 miles yesterday at 18mph
>> avg speed).
>>
>> No idea what the calorie count is but it must be about 2500-3000.
>
>No fruit, and no vegetables? Sounds "unbalanced" to me.
>
>GG

OK, my bad. I always forget something. I had one medium raw turnip at lunch
and when I have burgers I wrap them with lettuce instead of a bun. I also
snack from SAMS trailfood mix.

I admit I'm rather low on the veggies and fruits. After riding I sometimes
have dilute grape juice in the 'window' (1 hr post ride).

Redid the calorie count and it's close to 2500. That's not a lot of food. I
don't know how you get past being hungry all the time on yours which by my
estimation is closer to 2000 than 2500 calories. I presume you eat a lot
more when you ride those 55 mountain miles?

You don't have a lot of fat in yours if I read it correctly. That usually
leads to hunger, ime.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:36:25
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:n21go21d4v912c1jvmsrs8arkgee0itq15@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:52:27 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:6ejeo2he4pokqc5th1smbnii3s8ol6g7tk@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:02:40 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It doesn't matter if you're a 350 lb NFL lineman who normally eats
5000
> >> >calories per day, or a 105 lb post-menopausal woman who maintains on
1500
> >> >calories per day. For weight loss, it's those few hundred calories
above
> >or
> >> >below your "balance point" that make all the difference.
> >>
> >> Understand. You can get this deficit by eating less or exercising more.
> >>
> >> Here's my food today (not that you asked):
> >>
> >> Breakfast: Bowl of homemade meatballs (8-10). Coffee w/ cream.
> >> Snack: 20 almonds, 1/4 cup pumpkin seeds.
> >>
> >> Lunch : Five steak cubes. 1"x1". Two cups coffee w/ cream.
> >> Snack: two tblsp of crunchy p-nut butter.
> >>
> >> Dinner: One lg. lambchop, 20 almonds.
> >> Snack: Popcorn.
> >>
> >> (Low Dairy day - no extra milk besides coffee cream).
> >>
> >> Exercise: None - recovering from flu. (Rode 10 miles yesterday at 18mph
> >> avg speed).
> >>
> >> No idea what the calorie count is but it must be about 2500-3000.
> >
> >No fruit, and no vegetables? Sounds "unbalanced" to me.
> >
> >GG
>
> OK, my bad. I always forget something. I had one medium raw turnip at
lunch
> and when I have burgers I wrap them with lettuce instead of a bun. I also
> snack from SAMS trailfood mix.

re: fruits and vegetables

That's still a piss-poor diet (lettuce barely counts).

re: SAMS trailfood

That stuff is probably the prime reason you can't lose weight. If it's the
stuff with nuts, dried fruit bits, and M&M's, it has about the same calorie
content as Snicker's bars, and it's really easy to eat 600+ calories without
even thinking about it. It's definitely not "healthy", despite what you
might think.

>
> I admit I'm rather low on the veggies and fruits. After riding I sometimes
> have dilute grape juice in the 'window' (1 hr post ride).

Dried fruits and fruit juices are poor choices if you're trying to lose
weight...both are very calorie dense, and easy to overconsume. Much better
to eat real, whole, fruits and veggies.

> Redid the calorie count and it's close to 2500. That's not a lot of food.
I
> don't know how you get past being hungry all the time on yours which by my
> estimation is closer to 2000 than 2500 calories. I presume you eat a lot
> more when you ride those 55 mountain miles?
>
> You don't have a lot of fat in yours if I read it correctly. That usually
> leads to hunger, ime.

That's a good point...my breakfast includes a fair amount of fat, from the
granola and the almonds. And, I make sure to get some during my mid-day
meal (or, with almonds as snacks). I've found that a diet that's too low in
fat leads to me being sleepy and/or hungry in the late afternoon. But,
because fats are so high in calories, you have to be careful not to eat too
much, and to focus on good fats (e.g., nuts, olive oil, avocados, etc.).

FWIW, I rarely get hungry, but I'm convinced that many people eat due to
nervousness, or whenever their stomach is empty (but, before they're really
hungry).

GG

Date: 20 Dec 2006 08:12:20
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:36:25 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>re: fruits and vegetables
>
>That's still a piss-poor diet (lettuce barely counts).

Again, dumbass, you have no idea what you're talking about. I happen to be
in a 'diet phase', which is similar to a PSMF. At that level I purposely
cut out certain dietary elements. You have no reason to assume that this is
my year-round diet. I merely posted that since you were nice enough to post
yours to show calorie consumption, and in one sense to show how we often
miscalculate and fail to include everything.

>re: SAMS trailfood
>
>That stuff is probably the prime reason you can't lose weight. If it's the
>stuff with nuts, dried fruit bits, and M&M's, it has about the same calorie
>content as Snicker's bars, and it's really easy to eat 600+ calories without
>even thinking about it. It's definitely not "healthy", despite what you
>might think.

Who said I couldn't lose weight (currently)? I only stated the level of
riding at which the weight seemed to easily start to come off with little
attention to diet.

For some reason you must find it empowering to assume that others struggle
with weight issues or something. I don't have that problem.

>> I admit I'm rather low on the veggies and fruits. After riding I sometimes
>> have dilute grape juice in the 'window' (1 hr post ride).
>
>Dried fruits and fruit juices are poor choices if you're trying to lose
>weight...both are very calorie dense, and easy to overconsume. Much better
>to eat real, whole, fruits and veggies.

No, they are not, depending on what phase of a diet one might be in.

Also, I pick through the trail mix and do not eat the candy parts.

>> Redid the calorie count and it's close to 2500. That's not a lot of food.
>> I don't know how you get past being hungry all the time on yours which by my
>> estimation is closer to 2000 than 2500 calories. I presume you eat a lot
>> more when you ride those 55 mountain miles?
>>
>> You don't have a lot of fat in yours if I read it correctly. That usually
>> leads to hunger, ime.
>
>That's a good point...my breakfast includes a fair amount of fat, from the
>granola and the almonds. And, I make sure to get some during my mid-day
>meal (or, with almonds as snacks). I've found that a diet that's too low in
>fat leads to me being sleepy and/or hungry in the late afternoon. But,
>because fats are so high in calories, you have to be careful not to eat too
>much, and to focus on good fats (e.g., nuts, olive oil, avocados, etc.).
>
>FWIW, I rarely get hungry, but I'm convinced that many people eat due to
>nervousness, or whenever their stomach is empty (but, before they're really
>hungry).

OK, again, dumbass, you're trying to generalize based on your own
peculiarities of metabolism. You may be atypical.

Why not listen more and proselytize less?

>GG
>

Date: 20 Dec 2006 06:31:24
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:9bdio2lu6jgl9vtmkcogdlod925ff78cio@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:36:25 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> wrote:
>
> >re: fruits and vegetables
> >
> >That's still a piss-poor diet (lettuce barely counts).
>
> Again, dumbass, you have no idea what you're talking about. I happen to be
> in a 'diet phase', which is similar to a PSMF. At that level I purposely
> cut out certain dietary elements. You have no reason to assume that this
is
> my year-round diet. I merely posted that since you were nice enough to
post
> yours to show calorie consumption, and in one sense to show how we often
> miscalculate and fail to include everything.
>
>
> >re: SAMS trailfood
> >
> >That stuff is probably the prime reason you can't lose weight. If it's
the
> >stuff with nuts, dried fruit bits, and M&M's, it has about the same
calorie
> >content as Snicker's bars, and it's really easy to eat 600+ calories
without
> >even thinking about it. It's definitely not "healthy", despite what you
> >might think.
>
> Who said I couldn't lose weight (currently)? I only stated the level of
> riding at which the weight seemed to easily start to come off with little
> attention to diet.
>
> For some reason you must find it empowering to assume that others struggle
> with weight issues or something. I don't have that problem.
>
> >> I admit I'm rather low on the veggies and fruits. After riding I
sometimes
> >> have dilute grape juice in the 'window' (1 hr post ride).
> >
> >Dried fruits and fruit juices are poor choices if you're trying to lose
> >weight...both are very calorie dense, and easy to overconsume. Much
better
> >to eat real, whole, fruits and veggies.
>
> No, they are not, depending on what phase of a diet one might be in.

from http://www.annecollins.com/diet_nutrition/dried-fruit.htm
"1 cup grapes has 60 calories while 1 cup raisins has 495 calories. So if
you are on a weight loss diet dried fruit should only be eaten in small
quantities. In addition, the fiber in dried fruit is less effective in
satisfying your appetite."

> Also, I pick through the trail mix and do not eat the candy parts.

It still has a ton of calories thanks to the nuts. If you can limit
yourself to only very small servings (i.e., 1/4 cup or less), it's OK as a
snack...but, many people find themselves eating too much of that supposedly
"healthy" snack.

> >> Redid the calorie count and it's close to 2500. That's not a lot of
food.
> >> I don't know how you get past being hungry all the time on yours which
by my
> >> estimation is closer to 2000 than 2500 calories. I presume you eat a
lot
> >> more when you ride those 55 mountain miles?
> >>
> >> You don't have a lot of fat in yours if I read it correctly. That
usually
> >> leads to hunger, ime.
> >
> >That's a good point...my breakfast includes a fair amount of fat, from
the
> >granola and the almonds. And, I make sure to get some during my mid-day
> >meal (or, with almonds as snacks). I've found that a diet that's too low
in
> >fat leads to me being sleepy and/or hungry in the late afternoon. But,
> >because fats are so high in calories, you have to be careful not to eat
too
> >much, and to focus on good fats (e.g., nuts, olive oil, avocados, etc.).
> >
> >FWIW, I rarely get hungry, but I'm convinced that many people eat due to
> >nervousness, or whenever their stomach is empty (but, before they're
really
> >hungry).
>
> OK, again, dumbass, you're trying to generalize based on your own
> peculiarities of metabolism. You may be atypical.
>
> Why not listen more and proselytize less?

Because I know many people who have been successful at weight loss who have
used recreational cycling as part of their diet and exercise strategy, and
you keep trying to imply that cycling is not a good way to lose weight.

But thanks for once again illustrating that food choices are very important,
even when a good exercise program is in place. As others have noted, if you
wish to lose weight, and you're riding 70-80 miles per week, the reason
you're not losing weight has nothing to do with cycling or "caloric
efficiencies"...instead, it comes down to what (and how much) you choose to
eat.

GG

>
>
> >GG
> >
>

Date: 20 Dec 2006 10:41:02
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:31:24 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>> OK, again, dumbass, you're trying to generalize based on your own
>> peculiarities of metabolism. You may be atypical.
>>
>> Why not listen more and proselytize less?
>
>Because I know many people who have been successful at weight loss who have
>used recreational cycling as part of their diet and exercise strategy, and
>you keep trying to imply that cycling is not a good way to lose weight.

Then why not cite those examples with specifics? That's what I'm trying to
do with the 'ride lots' idea. You'll note that just today 'nash' posted
that when he toured he rode about 8-10 hours per day and didn't lose
weight. Could he really be eating 7,000 calories per day and not realizing
it? Maybe, given the caloric constituency of some types of trail mix.

>But thanks for once again illustrating that food choices are very important,
>even when a good exercise program is in place. As others have noted, if you
>wish to lose weight, and you're riding 70-80 miles per week, the reason
>you're not losing weight has nothing to do with cycling or "caloric
>efficiencies"...instead, it comes down to what (and how much) you choose to
>eat.
>
>GG

And you've just illustrated how difficult it is to achieve weight loss by
dieting, because you can easily get extra calories without realizing it.

I don't think we're on different pages in this 'debate'. In fact I may be
playing a bit of the devil's advocate.

I happen to think, like Steve Freides, that dieting is a major portion of
how one normally loses weight. I've offered that I lost weight on a LC diet
with no exercising at all.

I'm simply offering some ideas about how to do it by the concept of 'riding
lots' and not paying a large amount of attention to the diet.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:55:28
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Hi Set,
>>> I think many people expect to be able to continue losing weight by
>>> cycling
> and after the first few months are disappointed. I'm offering some reasons
> why.
>
> When I was running I was not trying to lose weight. In fact still being
> into weight training, I wanted to keep around 185lbs. Without wanting to,
> without changing my diet, running 5miles/day, four days per week, I lost
> weight down to under 170 in about six months, and from there it leveled
> off.
<<<
It is a good thing it levelled off since that was 15lbs and close to your
year limit.
As far as I know it depends on what level they start at, and the premise
that more that 18 pounds a year is not recommended by doctors. If they lost
slower in other words they could cycle for a year and be losing weight
slower but with the same safe results.
Say the male subject is 250 and fat is 16%
They should take a year to lose and keep it off to know if they are not
going to fall back and increase fat again.
Just pointing out that that is why a body may plateau. It is just safer.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:22:24
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:55:28 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:

>Hi Set,
>>>> I think many people expect to be able to continue losing weight by
>>>> cycling
>> and after the first few months are disappointed. I'm offering some reasons
>> why.
>>
>> When I was running I was not trying to lose weight. In fact still being
>> into weight training, I wanted to keep around 185lbs. Without wanting to,
>> without changing my diet, running 5miles/day, four days per week, I lost
>> weight down to under 170 in about six months, and from there it leveled
>> off.
><<<
>It is a good thing it levelled off since that was 15lbs and close to your
>year limit.
>As far as I know it depends on what level they start at, and the premise
>that more that 18 pounds a year is not recommended by doctors. If they lost
>slower in other words they could cycle for a year and be losing weight
>slower but with the same safe results.
>Say the male subject is 250 and fat is 16%
>They should take a year to lose and keep it off to know if they are not
>going to fall back and increase fat again.
>Just pointing out that that is why a body may plateau. It is just safer.
>

My natural bodyweight, taking it from college age (20-22) is 155lbs. So I
had more to lose.

I gained to about 180-190 by lifting post college.

In later life, due to a sedentary phase I went up quite a bit and about 10
years later lost about 40-50lbs in about 8 months, and later lost 20 more
in the last two months of that year.

So it depends. But I agree in principle.

I'm not sure we know why people put it back on again. Multi-factorial, but
I suspect mostly mental. Retreating to using food as a reward. Eating for
comfort, for instance. I'm not sure ease of regain can be tied to speed of
loss, but I guess it's possible.

Very, very few people make it past the five year k at or below the new
weight. Supposedly if you do the recidivism rate drops kedly.

Thanks for the comments.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 05:34:33
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:12oc5piokpg0eaf@news.supernews.com...
> "Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
> news:8pubo2d6o76g26v9a6k9mvq50im51nnrli@4ax.com
> :: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:56:02 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> :: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::
> ::: "Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
> ::: news:kpmbo29i05lulh4gd9e8t4s1ac47dldu4d@4ax.com
> ::::: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse
> ::::: <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:
> :::::
> :::::: Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
> ::::::
> ::::::: Cycling is just not that strenuous at recreational
> ::::::: levels.
> ::::::
> :::::: That depends highy on the definiton on
> :::::: "recreational". Yesterday's Saturday fun group ride
> :::::: was 55 miles, with 5000 feet of climbing. I burned
> :::::: 2900 calories, or the equivalent of about 8/10ths of
> :::::: a pound of fat.
> ::::::
> :::::: It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per hour
> :::::: on a bike, hour after hour.
> :::::
> ::::: You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a bit
> ::::: optimistic.
> :::::
> ::::: For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100
> ::::: miles is about 7 hours per week. That's a commute of
> ::::: 8 miles each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10 on
> ::::: Sunday. By the 'book' that's about 4500 calories -
> ::::: for the entire week.
> :::::
> ::::: It should make a difference, but frequently, after the
> ::::: initial first few months of riding this results in
> ::::: little additional weight loss. Not sure why, but
> ::::: that's my experience. It's good for maintenance.
> :::
> ::: I told you why....your eating plus your required
> ::: maintenance are such that you're simply at equilibrium
> ::: at your current riding level.
> ::
> :: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
> :: it may be that as you ride more, you get more efficient
> :: so that you actually get good at minimizing caloric
> :: expenditure when riding. It may be that your metabolizm
> :: is impacted in a way that food you eat is more
> :: efficiently utilized.
>
> Or, you've just reached equilibrium.
>
> ::
> :: I wouldn't doubt there's weight loss occurring, but it
> :: may be too small, given these other factors.
> ::
> :: I'm not aware of any prodigious extra stuffing of the
> :: pie hole; honestly.
>
> This would cause weight gain...you are simply not losing, so you have
> gavitated over time to a steady state.
>
> ::
> :: My point is, there are times and occasions when it is
> :: prodigiously hard to lose weight, despite fairly strong
> :: efforts in both the dietary and exercise department. I
> :: don't know if set point is still in vogue, but that was
> :: once thought to be involved. Remember it's a very
> :: complex hormonal feedback inhibition loop we're dealing
> :: with.
> ::
> ::::: When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or
> ::::: 10-12 hrs per week, it really starts to make a
> ::::: difference. That's about 6500-7200 calories/week, if
> ::::: I've munged the numbers correctly. ;-)
> :::
> ::: Of course, now you've increased your activity to the
> ::: point where you can see weight loss rapidly enough to
> ::: feel satisfied.
> :::
> ::: There is no mystery here. You seem to be good at
> ::: counting the miles but not counting the calories. Also,
> ::: neither one (converting miles ridden to calories burned
> ::: and food eaten to calories consumed) is going to be
> ::: 100% accurate, so one must hunt around for what works
> ::: in terms of calories burned / eaten and rate of loss in
> ::: the scale. Implicit in all of this is consistency and
> ::: sticking with it long enough to see results.
> ::
> :: You may think there's no 'mystery' but we've still not
> :: figured out the whole thing. First thought to be
> :: controllable by leptin, now we have ghrelin, peptide YY,
> :: NPY, CART, alpha-MSH and melanocortin, CKK all involved
> :: in the biochemistry.
> ::
> :: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
> :: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are lean.
> :: Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually 20-50lbs
> :: overweight).
> ::
>
> Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so because they are
> lean (ie, lighter), and those who cycle tend to do so because they are
> heavier? Running is much more higher impact than cycling, so the sports
> tend to self-select according to body types. A heavy runner just isn't
> going to last long. Not so in cycling.
>
> All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide execuses. People are
> willing to pay to have researchers tell them it's not their fault.
>
> :: Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I
> :: experience. Ymmv.
>
> I believe you are offering your experience, but I see no indication that
> you are careful in tracking intake/expenditure.

You plateaued. Change it up. Use you muscles in a different way and
increase load. I trained in all the sports full time all year.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 00:43:48
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:JLphh.501994$R63.164958@pd7urf1no
:: "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
:: news:12oc5piokpg0eaf@news.supernews.com...
::: "Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
::: news:8pubo2d6o76g26v9a6k9mvq50im51nnrli@4ax.com
::::: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:56:02 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
::::: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
:::::
:::::: "Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
:::::: news:kpmbo29i05lulh4gd9e8t4s1ac47dldu4d@4ax.com
:::::::: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse
:::::::: <tmorse@spamcop.net > wrote:
::::::::
::::::::: Set<@setnet.com > wrote:
:::::::::
:::::::::: Cycling is just not that strenuous at
:::::::::: recreational levels.
:::::::::
::::::::: That depends highy on the definiton on
::::::::: "recreational". Yesterday's Saturday fun group
::::::::: ride was 55 miles, with 5000 feet of climbing. I
::::::::: burned 2900 calories, or the equivalent of about
::::::::: 8/10ths of a pound of fat.
:::::::::
::::::::: It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per
::::::::: hour on a bike, hour after hour.
::::::::
:::::::: You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a
:::::::: bit optimistic.
::::::::
:::::::: For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100
:::::::: miles is about 7 hours per week. That's a commute
:::::::: of 8 miles each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10 on
:::::::: Sunday. By the 'book' that's about 4500 calories -
:::::::: for the entire week.
::::::::
:::::::: It should make a difference, but frequently, after
:::::::: the initial first few months of riding this
:::::::: results in little additional weight loss. Not sure
:::::::: why, but that's my experience. It's good for
:::::::: maintenance.
::::::
:::::: I told you why....your eating plus your required
:::::: maintenance are such that you're simply at
:::::: equilibrium at your current riding level.
:::::
::::: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
::::: it may be that as you ride more, you get more
::::: efficient so that you actually get good at minimizing
::::: caloric expenditure when riding. It may be that your
::::: metabolizm is impacted in a way that food you eat is
::::: more efficiently utilized.
:::
::: Or, you've just reached equilibrium.
:::
:::::
::::: I wouldn't doubt there's weight loss occurring, but it
::::: may be too small, given these other factors.
:::::
::::: I'm not aware of any prodigious extra stuffing of the
::::: pie hole; honestly.
:::
::: This would cause weight gain...you are simply not
::: losing, so you have gavitated over time to a steady
::: state.
:::
:::::
::::: My point is, there are times and occasions when it is
::::: prodigiously hard to lose weight, despite fairly
::::: strong efforts in both the dietary and exercise
::::: department. I don't know if set point is still in
::::: vogue, but that was once thought to be involved.
::::: Remember it's a very complex hormonal feedback
::::: inhibition loop we're dealing with.
:::::
:::::::: When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or
:::::::: 10-12 hrs per week, it really starts to make a
:::::::: difference. That's about 6500-7200 calories/week,
:::::::: if I've munged the numbers correctly. ;-)
::::::
:::::: Of course, now you've increased your activity to the
:::::: point where you can see weight loss rapidly enough to
:::::: feel satisfied.
::::::
:::::: There is no mystery here. You seem to be good at
:::::: counting the miles but not counting the calories.
:::::: Also, neither one (converting miles ridden to
:::::: calories burned and food eaten to calories consumed)
:::::: is going to be 100% accurate, so one must hunt
:::::: around for what works in terms of calories burned /
:::::: eaten and rate of loss in the scale. Implicit in
:::::: all of this is consistency and sticking with it long
:::::: enough to see results.
:::::
::::: You may think there's no 'mystery' but we've still not
::::: figured out the whole thing. First thought to be
::::: controllable by leptin, now we have ghrelin, peptide
::::: YY, NPY, CART, alpha-MSH and melanocortin, CKK all
::::: involved in the biochemistry.
:::::
::::: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
::::: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are
::::: lean. Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually
::::: 20-50lbs overweight).
:::::
:::
::: Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so
::: because they are lean (ie, lighter), and those who
::: cycle tend to do so because they are heavier? Running
::: is much more higher impact than cycling, so the sports
::: tend to self-select according to body types. A heavy
::: runner just isn't going to last long. Not so in
::: cycling.
:::
::: All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide
::: execuses. People are willing to pay to have researchers
::: tell them it's not their fault.
:::
::::: Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I
::::: experience. Ymmv.
:::
::: I believe you are offering your experience, but I see
::: no indication that you are careful in tracking
::: intake/expenditure.
::
::
:: You plateaued. Change it up. Use you muscles in a
:: different way and increase load. I trained in all the
:: sports full time all year.

You mean he's bored, right?

Date: 18 Dec 2006 06:38:25
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:12ocakjd43ars08@news.supernews.com...
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:JLphh.501994$R63.164958@pd7urf1no
> :: "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:12oc5piokpg0eaf@news.supernews.com...
> ::: "Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
> ::: news:8pubo2d6o76g26v9a6k9mvq50im51nnrli@4ax.com
> ::::: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:56:02 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> ::::: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :::::
> :::::: "Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
> :::::: news:kpmbo29i05lulh4gd9e8t4s1ac47dldu4d@4ax.com
> :::::::: On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse
> :::::::: <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:
> ::::::::
> ::::::::: Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
> :::::::::
> :::::::::: Cycling is just not that strenuous at
> :::::::::: recreational levels.
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: That depends highy on the definiton on
> ::::::::: "recreational". Yesterday's Saturday fun group
> ::::::::: ride was 55 miles, with 5000 feet of climbing. I
> ::::::::: burned 2900 calories, or the equivalent of about
> ::::::::: 8/10ths of a pound of fat.
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: It is not that hard to burn 600-700 calories per
> ::::::::: hour on a bike, hour after hour.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: You'd think that, but I bet most calculators are a
> :::::::: bit optimistic.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: For most recreational riders, on flat terrain, 100
> :::::::: miles is about 7 hours per week. That's a commute
> :::::::: of 8 miles each way, plus 10 miles on Sat and 10 on
> :::::::: Sunday. By the 'book' that's about 4500 calories -
> :::::::: for the entire week.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: It should make a difference, but frequently, after
> :::::::: the initial first few months of riding this
> :::::::: results in little additional weight loss. Not sure
> :::::::: why, but that's my experience. It's good for
> :::::::: maintenance.
> ::::::
> :::::: I told you why....your eating plus your required
> :::::: maintenance are such that you're simply at
> :::::: equilibrium at your current riding level.
> :::::
> ::::: I think there's something else going on. For instance,
> ::::: it may be that as you ride more, you get more
> ::::: efficient so that you actually get good at minimizing
> ::::: caloric expenditure when riding. It may be that your
> ::::: metabolizm is impacted in a way that food you eat is
> ::::: more efficiently utilized.
> :::
> ::: Or, you've just reached equilibrium.
> :::
> :::::
> ::::: I wouldn't doubt there's weight loss occurring, but it
> ::::: may be too small, given these other factors.
> :::::
> ::::: I'm not aware of any prodigious extra stuffing of the
> ::::: pie hole; honestly.
> :::
> ::: This would cause weight gain...you are simply not
> ::: losing, so you have gavitated over time to a steady
> ::: state.
> :::
> :::::
> ::::: My point is, there are times and occasions when it is
> ::::: prodigiously hard to lose weight, despite fairly
> ::::: strong efforts in both the dietary and exercise
> ::::: department. I don't know if set point is still in
> ::::: vogue, but that was once thought to be involved.
> ::::: Remember it's a very complex hormonal feedback
> ::::: inhibition loop we're dealing with.
> :::::
> :::::::: When I hit 150 miles per week on flat terrain, or
> :::::::: 10-12 hrs per week, it really starts to make a
> :::::::: difference. That's about 6500-7200 calories/week,
> :::::::: if I've munged the numbers correctly. ;-)
> ::::::
> :::::: Of course, now you've increased your activity to the
> :::::: point where you can see weight loss rapidly enough to
> :::::: feel satisfied.
> ::::::
> :::::: There is no mystery here. You seem to be good at
> :::::: counting the miles but not counting the calories.
> :::::: Also, neither one (converting miles ridden to
> :::::: calories burned and food eaten to calories consumed)
> :::::: is going to be 100% accurate, so one must hunt
> :::::: around for what works in terms of calories burned /
> :::::: eaten and rate of loss in the scale. Implicit in
> :::::: all of this is consistency and sticking with it long
> :::::: enough to see results.
> :::::
> ::::: You may think there's no 'mystery' but we've still not
> ::::: figured out the whole thing. First thought to be
> ::::: controllable by leptin, now we have ghrelin, peptide
> ::::: YY, NPY, CART, alpha-MSH and melanocortin, CKK all
> ::::: involved in the biochemistry.
> :::::
> ::::: When I look at similar groups, over-50 cyclists and
> ::::: over-50 runners, they look different. Runners are
> ::::: lean. Masters cyclists are tubular (and usually
> ::::: 20-50lbs overweight).
> :::::
> :::
> ::: Has it occured to you that those who run tend to do so
> ::: because they are lean (ie, lighter), and those who
> ::: cycle tend to do so because they are heavier? Running
> ::: is much more higher impact than cycling, so the sports
> ::: tend to self-select according to body types. A heavy
> ::: runner just isn't going to last long. Not so in
> ::: cycling.
> :::
> ::: All the rest of it is just academic theory to provide
> ::: execuses. People are willing to pay to have researchers
> ::: tell them it's not their fault.
> :::
> ::::: Explain it as you like. I'm merely offering what I
> ::::: experience. Ymmv.
> :::
> ::: I believe you are offering your experience, but I see
> ::: no indication that you are careful in tracking
> ::: intake/expenditure.
> ::
> ::
> :: You plateaued. Change it up. Use you muscles in a
> :: different way and increase load. I trained in all the
> :: sports full time all year.
>
> You mean he's bored, right?
maybe. Try running up the Alps and see if that will wake up your adrenalin.
But seriously, maybe you have no fat to lose. Try fat caliper measurements.
Quick version is if you can squeeze more than an inch between thumb and
finger above the belly button you could lose more.
Muscle is denser. Males carry less fat than females. I think 4% is the
lowest you can go without causing blood vessels to break randomly and maybe
killing you.
Stallone use to be in that category. Imagine risking your life to attract
the dolls.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:35:25
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

nash wrote:
<Big snip >
> maybe. Try running up the Alps and see if that will wake up your adrenalin.
> But seriously, maybe you have no fat to lose. Try fat caliper measurements.
> Quick version is if you can squeeze more than an inch between thumb and
> finger above the belly button you could lose more.
> Muscle is denser. Males carry less fat than females. I think 4% is the
> lowest you can go without causing blood vessels to break randomly and maybe
> killing you.

You sure about that? I am 5'7" and got down to 143 about 2 summers ago
and felt fine even though my ribs were showing. The BMI chart showed
that as the below optimum weight which for me was about 146 for best
health. I think I was below 4% at that point and all my muscles had
moved to my legs. Breaking blood vessels?? What's that all about?

> Stallone use to be in that category. Imagine risking your life to attract
> the dolls.

Better yet, imagine getting the dolls, and going out with a 'bang'
literally.
<grin >
Bill Baka

Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:02:24
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:ZdIhh.1786$QU1.994@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
> <Big snip>
> > maybe. Try running up the Alps and see if that will wake up your
adrenalin.
> > But seriously, maybe you have no fat to lose. Try fat caliper
measurements.
> > Quick version is if you can squeeze more than an inch between thumb and
> > finger above the belly button you could lose more.
> > Muscle is denser. Males carry less fat than females. I think 4% is the
> > lowest you can go without causing blood vessels to break randomly and
maybe
> > killing you.
>
> You sure about that? I am 5'7" and got down to 143 about 2 summers ago
> and felt fine even though my ribs were showing. The BMI chart showed
> that as the below optimum weight which for me was about 146 for best
> health. I think I was below 4% at that point and all my muscles had
> moved to my legs. Breaking blood vessels?? What's that all about?

At 5' 7" and 143 lbs, your BMI was 22.4...that's well within the "normal
weight" range, and definitely not "below optimum".

To get down to the "Underweight" category, you'd have to get down to 131 lbs
(per www.halls.md), or down to 117 (per the Centers for Disease Control).

At 143 lbs, it's highly unlikely that you were at 4% body fat. 10-12% would
be much more believable.

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Computer-Assisted Weight Management

>
> > Stallone use to be in that category. Imagine risking your life to
attract
> > the dolls.
>
> Better yet, imagine getting the dolls, and going out with a 'bang'
> literally.
> <grin>
> Bill Baka

Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:44:14
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

GaryG wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZdIhh.1786$QU1.994@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> nash wrote:
>> <Big snip>
>>> maybe. Try running up the Alps and see if that will wake up your
> adrenalin.
>>> But seriously, maybe you have no fat to lose. Try fat caliper
> measurements.
>>> Quick version is if you can squeeze more than an inch between thumb and
>>> finger above the belly button you could lose more.
>>> Muscle is denser. Males carry less fat than females. I think 4% is the
>>> lowest you can go without causing blood vessels to break randomly and
> maybe
>>> killing you.
>> You sure about that? I am 5'7" and got down to 143 about 2 summers ago
>> and felt fine even though my ribs were showing. The BMI chart showed
>> that as the below optimum weight which for me was about 146 for best
>> health. I think I was below 4% at that point and all my muscles had
>> moved to my legs. Breaking blood vessels?? What's that all about?
>
> At 5' 7" and 143 lbs, your BMI was 22.4...that's well within the "normal
> weight" range, and definitely not "below optimum".
>
> To get down to the "Underweight" category, you'd have to get down to 131 lbs
> (per www.halls.md), or down to 117 (per the Centers for Disease Control).
>
> At 143 lbs, it's highly unlikely that you were at 4% body fat. 10-12% would
> be much more believable.

You are neglecting the fact that I was carrying about 15 pounds of extra
leg muscle and it wasn't top end muscle. If I had just dieted to that
amount of skinny on top and had no leg muscle mass I would have been
about 120 lbs. My wife complained that even my face looked like a
starving person so my body fat was definitely down in the 4% or less
range. It was the leg muscle that made up the weight. What you are
referring to as the weight bible does not count training for a specific
sport but rather the effects of malnutrition on someone who does not
work out.
Sorry.
Bill Baka
>
> GG
> http://www.WeightWare.com
> Computer-Assisted Weight Management
>
>
>>> Stallone use to be in that category. Imagine risking your life to
> attract
>>> the dolls.
>> Better yet, imagine getting the dolls, and going out with a 'bang'
>> literally.
>> <grin>
>> Bill Baka
>
>

Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:28:31
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:yH%hh.24236$wc5.10819@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> GaryG wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:ZdIhh.1786$QU1.994@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> >> nash wrote:
> >> <Big snip>
> >>> maybe. Try running up the Alps and see if that will wake up your
> > adrenalin.
> >>> But seriously, maybe you have no fat to lose. Try fat caliper
> > measurements.
> >>> Quick version is if you can squeeze more than an inch between thumb
and
> >>> finger above the belly button you could lose more.
> >>> Muscle is denser. Males carry less fat than females. I think 4% is
the
> >>> lowest you can go without causing blood vessels to break randomly and
> > maybe
> >>> killing you.
> >> You sure about that? I am 5'7" and got down to 143 about 2 summers ago
> >> and felt fine even though my ribs were showing. The BMI chart showed
> >> that as the below optimum weight which for me was about 146 for best
> >> health. I think I was below 4% at that point and all my muscles had
> >> moved to my legs. Breaking blood vessels?? What's that all about?
> >
> > At 5' 7" and 143 lbs, your BMI was 22.4...that's well within the "normal
> > weight" range, and definitely not "below optimum".
> >
> > To get down to the "Underweight" category, you'd have to get down to 131
lbs
> > (per www.halls.md), or down to 117 (per the Centers for Disease
Control).
> >
> > At 143 lbs, it's highly unlikely that you were at 4% body fat. 10-12%
would
> > be much more believable.
>
> You are neglecting the fact that I was carrying about 15 pounds of extra
> leg muscle and it wasn't top end muscle. If I had just dieted to that
> amount of skinny on top and had no leg muscle mass I would have been
> about 120 lbs. My wife complained that even my face looked like a
> starving person so my body fat was definitely down in the 4% or less
> range. It was the leg muscle that made up the weight. What you are
> referring to as the weight bible does not count training for a specific
> sport but rather the effects of malnutrition on someone who does not
> work out.
> Sorry.
> Bill Baka

At his peak, Lance Armstrong was never less than 5% body fat. Most
competitive body builders have trouble getting down that low too.

The odds that a middle-aged guy on a mountain bike could get down to 4% just
from riding recreationally, is laughable.

This is yet another in a long line of your "tall tales" (aka, BBBS).

Sorry.

GG

> >
> > GG
> > http://www.WeightWare.com
> > Computer-Assisted Weight Management
> >
> >
> >>> Stallone use to be in that category. Imagine risking your life to
> > attract
> >>> the dolls.
> >> Better yet, imagine getting the dolls, and going out with a 'bang'
> >> literally.
> >> <grin>
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> >

Date: 20 Dec 2006 02:11:02
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

GaryG wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> At 143 lbs, it's highly unlikely that you were at 4% body fat. 10-12%
> would
>>> be much more believable.
>> You are neglecting the fact that I was carrying about 15 pounds of extra
>> leg muscle and it wasn't top end muscle. If I had just dieted to that
>> amount of skinny on top and had no leg muscle mass I would have been
>> about 120 lbs. My wife complained that even my face looked like a
>> starving person so my body fat was definitely down in the 4% or less
>> range. It was the leg muscle that made up the weight. What you are
>> referring to as the weight bible does not count training for a specific
>> sport but rather the effects of malnutrition on someone who does not
>> work out.
>> Sorry.
>> Bill Baka
>
> At his peak, Lance Armstrong was never less than 5% body fat. Most
> competitive body builders have trouble getting down that low too.
>
> The odds that a middle-aged guy on a mountain bike could get down to 4% just
> from riding recreationally, is laughable.

Laugh all you want but I had no detectable fat. There may have been some
internal fat but none on my exterior. I wasn't training for the TdF nor
was I riding purely recreationally when I put in 9 hour, 100+ mile days.
However, 58 does feel middle aged for me since I plan on riding well
into my 100's. If you are still around 42 years from now, THEN you can
bug me.
>
> This is yet another in a long line of your "tall tales" (aka, BBBS).
>
> Sorry.

Not sorry, dude. I am healthier than the average 30 year old so the
laugh is on every one else. My doctor can't find a single age related
thing wrong with me, but I do have insomnia, which I have had forever
due to being naturally hyperactive. The only tall tale that keeps coming
back to bite me in the ass is the overestimate of my tricycle speed when
I was 4 maybe 5 years old. The rest I have done in my long and active
lifetime. I live, you merely think you do....boring.
>
> GG
>
You kids these days must be raised to be afraid to do anything without
mommies permission.
Wimps.
Bill Baka

Date: 19 Dec 2006 22:38:13
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:WY0ih.24265$wc5.14297@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> GaryG wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> At 143 lbs, it's highly unlikely that you were at 4% body fat. 10-12%
> > would
> >>> be much more believable.
> >> You are neglecting the fact that I was carrying about 15 pounds of
extra
> >> leg muscle and it wasn't top end muscle. If I had just dieted to that
> >> amount of skinny on top and had no leg muscle mass I would have been
> >> about 120 lbs. My wife complained that even my face looked like a
> >> starving person so my body fat was definitely down in the 4% or less
> >> range. It was the leg muscle that made up the weight. What you are
> >> referring to as the weight bible does not count training for a specific
> >> sport but rather the effects of malnutrition on someone who does not
> >> work out.
> >> Sorry.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > At his peak, Lance Armstrong was never less than 5% body fat. Most
> > competitive body builders have trouble getting down that low too.
> >
> > The odds that a middle-aged guy on a mountain bike could get down to 4%
just
> > from riding recreationally, is laughable.
>
> Laugh all you want but I had no detectable fat. There may have been some
> internal fat but none on my exterior.

I don't doubt that you were pretty lean (maybe as low as 10-12%)...but,
there's no way in hell you were at 4% body fat. At that level, you would
have distinctive six-pack abs, and the striations in individual muscles
(e.g., chest, and lats) would be clearly visible.

FWIW, high school wrestlers generally compete at around 7% body fat. So,
are you trying to tell us that, as a middle-aged man you had a lot less body
fat than a high school athlete? If so, you're either a complete
bull-shitter, or clueless (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
you're clueless about realistic body fat percentages).

Of course, if you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claim, please
post it (e.g., photos, caliper readings, etc.). As with most of your claims
to fame, I'm sure you'll bluster and blubber...and not produce even one
shred of evidence. But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.

GG

> I wasn't training for the TdF nor
> was I riding purely recreationally when I put in 9 hour, 100+ mile days.
> However, 58 does feel middle aged for me since I plan on riding well
> into my 100's. If you are still around 42 years from now, THEN you can
> bug me.
> >
> > This is yet another in a long line of your "tall tales" (aka, BBBS).
> >
> > Sorry.
>
> Not sorry, dude. I am healthier than the average 30 year old so the
> laugh is on every one else. My doctor can't find a single age related
> thing wrong with me, but I do have insomnia, which I have had forever
> due to being naturally hyperactive. The only tall tale that keeps coming
> back to bite me in the ass is the overestimate of my tricycle speed when
> I was 4 maybe 5 years old. The rest I have done in my long and active
> lifetime. I live, you merely think you do....boring.
> >
> > GG
> >
> You kids these days must be raised to be afraid to do anything without
> mommies permission.
> Wimps.
> Bill Baka

Date: 20 Dec 2006 07:51:14
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:38:13 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>I don't doubt that you were pretty lean (maybe as low as 10-12%)...but,
>there's no way in hell you were at 4% body fat. At that level, you would
>have distinctive six-pack abs, and the striations in individual muscles
>(e.g., chest, and lats) would be clearly visible.
>
>FWIW, high school wrestlers generally compete at around 7% body fat. So,
>are you trying to tell us that, as a middle-aged man you had a lot less body
>fat than a high school athlete? If so, you're either a complete
>bull-shitter, or clueless (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
>you're clueless about realistic body fat percentages).
>
>Of course, if you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claim, please
>post it (e.g., photos, caliper readings, etc.). As with most of your claims
>to fame, I'm sure you'll bluster and blubber...and not produce even one
>shred of evidence. But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.
>
>GG

Happened to be looking at some websites that took competitive bodybuilders
who thought they were in the single-digit range of BF and measured them
using the Bod-pod and other methods.

I think the range of BF% was a bit higher, many of them coming in at 11%,
8% and somewhere inbetween. If you're interested I could try to dig around
in my cache and find it again.

Mostly, though it's higher than people think. Krista gives some good
examples in that link. (striations in the glutes, visible lymphnodes).

DSs often use the 'butt check' to assess competitor's fitness as we've seen
in some articles posted a year or so ago.

Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:33:48
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:38:13 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't doubt that you were pretty lean (maybe as low as 10-12%)...but,
>> there's no way in hell you were at 4% body fat. At that level, you would
>> have distinctive six-pack abs, and the striations in individual muscles
>> (e.g., chest, and lats) would be clearly visible.
>>
>> FWIW, high school wrestlers generally compete at around 7% body fat. So,
>> are you trying to tell us that, as a middle-aged man you had a lot less body
>> fat than a high school athlete? If so, you're either a complete
>> bull-shitter, or clueless (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> you're clueless about realistic body fat percentages).
>>
>> Of course, if you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claim, please
>> post it (e.g., photos, caliper readings, etc.). As with most of your claims
>> to fame, I'm sure you'll bluster and blubber...and not produce even one
>> shred of evidence. But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.
>>
>> GG
>
> Happened to be looking at some websites that took competitive bodybuilders
> who thought they were in the single-digit range of BF and measured them
> using the Bod-pod and other methods.
>
> I think the range of BF% was a bit higher, many of them coming in at 11%,
> 8% and somewhere inbetween. If you're interested I could try to dig around
> in my cache and find it again.
>
> Mostly, though it's higher than people think. Krista gives some good
> examples in that link. (striations in the glutes, visible lymphnodes).
>
> DSs often use the 'butt check' to assess competitor's fitness as we've seen
> in some articles posted a year or so ago.
>
>
Like I said, at that point I was not in the body builder mode, just
riding and running, so I was very skinny on top, and the fact that my
ribs were showing like an anorexic model just made it worse to my
family. When I lay on my back my stomach sunk almost to my backbone and
when I took a deep breath with my over sized lungs it really looked bad.
My legs look like I was doing serious weight lifting, but from the
buttocks on up it was a different story. There was nothing much to hold
my pants up so I don't think I could have lost much more without
starting to eat my leg muscles.
Different body types don't always fit in the 'average' chart.
Bill Baka

Date: 20 Dec 2006 18:25:53
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Hello GG
>>>But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.

But you did not prove what a 4%BF body looks like either.

Here is a link to Lance racing. Supposedly at 5% according to previous
posts.
Does Bill look similar to that you may ask. A standing Lance may not show
sinewy muscles. I thought you were comparing to body builders when Bill was
talking aerobic fit persons.

http://velonews.com/galleries/contest13a/Stg20%20TdF%20By%20ALBA%20METORN.html

Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:39:51
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

nash wrote:
> Hello GG
>>>> But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.
>
>
> But you did not prove what a 4%BF body looks like either.
>
> Here is a link to Lance racing. Supposedly at 5% according to previous
> posts.
> Does Bill look similar to that you may ask. A standing Lance may not show
> sinewy muscles. I thought you were comparing to body builders when Bill was
> talking aerobic fit persons.
>
> http://velonews.com/galleries/contest13a/Stg20%20TdF%20By%20ALBA%20METORN.html
>
>
That guy has way more bulk on top than I did at peak skinniness. And my
legs were more muscular even if not more efficient, maybe an age thing,
but my endurance and strength were great. Now that I have gained enough
weight to make my family happy I look like Joe Average for my age except
that my hair refuses to get gray.
I am going for thinner again this summer but not so low that I have a
family problem. Even my doctor, who is used to fat, diabetic, 30 year
olds, thought I was too thin, even though my pulse in his office was
down to 54, and at about 44-45 when I first got up in the morning.
Bill Baka

Date: 20 Dec 2006 06:59:05
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

GaryG wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> Laugh all you want but I had no detectable fat. There may have been some
>> internal fat but none on my exterior.
>
> I don't doubt that you were pretty lean (maybe as low as 10-12%)...but,
> there's no way in hell you were at 4% body fat. At that level, you would
> have distinctive six-pack abs, and the striations in individual muscles
> (e.g., chest, and lats) would be clearly visible.

I wasn't doing sit ups and shooting for the six pack look so I was just
plain skinny to the point where my ribs were showing. For some reason I
can do sit ups all day long and never get well defined abs, not even
when I was in high school and could do more than any one else in the
class. I was the most fit kid in gym class, aerobically, yet never had
big muscles. For some reason I was able to do one armed chin ups yet did
not look strong enough to do two armed ones. Genetics again?
>
> FWIW, high school wrestlers generally compete at around 7% body fat. So,
> are you trying to tell us that, as a middle-aged man you had a lot less body
> fat than a high school athlete?

Yes, and it was intentional on my part since I was trying to see how low
I could go, and BTW I think 58 is considered OLD, not middle aged, even
though my ancestors seem to be programmed for 100 years. That chance of
the genes could explain me but I will have to wait and see if I am still
hyper and running in another 20 years (at 78). I know I am not average.

If so, you're either a complete
> bull-shitter, or clueless (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
> you're clueless about realistic body fat percentages).

I'm hardly clueless and not bull-shitting on this one. I have high bone
density for one thing and don't break, but again I don't know why. My
body fat was down to the point where my face even looked like I was in a
POW camp and I looked for fat, anywhere, and could not find any.
>
> Of course, if you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claim, please
> post it (e.g., photos, caliper readings, etc.). As with most of your claims
> to fame, I'm sure you'll bluster and blubber...and not produce even one
> shred of evidence. But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.

I would except that I am back up to 180 pounds, which makes my wife
happy but makes me feel fat. I took one picture at about 160 of me with
no shirt and the bike and put it on my web site and got a load of shit
for it, but no pictures of me at 142-143. About 155 is my goal for the
summer but my wife just won't leave me alone when I get below that, so I
don't think photo proof is in the near future. Like I said, everyone
thought I had cancer and wanted to feed me, and due to my habit of
riding with sweat shorts and a t shirt people were starting to look at
me like I was a starving homeless person. I felt great but I think
people are hard wired to think that older men should be heavier. Thin
people do live longer but then younger people think you are sick so I
can't win. If, and that's a big if, I do get down to that weight again
and can convince my family to leave me do my own thing, I will post a
photo or two or three. It was a bit much to have my grandkids think I
was dying just because I wanted to be in mountain climbing shape.
Sorry, I got too much family around me.
Bill (not thin now) Baka
>
> GG
>

Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:39:00
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:Za5ih.24314$wc5.4012@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> GaryG wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> Laugh all you want but I had no detectable fat. There may have been
some
> >> internal fat but none on my exterior.
> >
> > I don't doubt that you were pretty lean (maybe as low as 10-12%)...but,
> > there's no way in hell you were at 4% body fat. At that level, you
would
> > have distinctive six-pack abs, and the striations in individual muscles
> > (e.g., chest, and lats) would be clearly visible.
>
> I wasn't doing sit ups and shooting for the six pack look so I was just
> plain skinny to the point where my ribs were showing. For some reason I
> can do sit ups all day long and never get well defined abs, not even
> when I was in high school and could do more than any one else in the
> class.

Thanks for once again illustrating your ignorance in this matter. At 4%
body fat, you wouldn't need to be doing a whole lot of situps...your abs
would be clearly visible simply due to the lack of fat covering them up. You
would also be able to see the individual muscle bundles making up your quads
and hamstrings. That you weren't this ripped is not surprising, and
confirms that you weren't at the ridiculously low body fat percentage you
claimed.

FWIW, here's what one of the better exercise and fitness websites says about
body fat:

"At one extreme, male bodybuilders before a contest can drop their body fat
to around 4-5%...These very low body fat percentages are generally
maintained for only a short period, normally before a photo shoot or
contest. Very low body fat percentages are extremely difficult to maintain
for most people, since the body has metabolic and hormonal mechanisms in
place to prevent what it perceives as a shortage of available resources."

http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=13

And these are trained and motivated competitors...not some middle aged guy
on a mountain bike with no clue as to training, nutrition, etc. For us to
believe that you were able to get down to 4%, in the absence of any proof,
is simply ridiculous (as are most of your claims of grandeur).

> I was the most fit kid in gym class, aerobically, yet never had
> big muscles. For some reason I was able to do one armed chin ups yet did
> not look strong enough to do two armed ones. Genetics again?
> >
> > FWIW, high school wrestlers generally compete at around 7% body fat.
So,
> > are you trying to tell us that, as a middle-aged man you had a lot less
body
> > fat than a high school athlete?
>
> Yes, and it was intentional on my part since I was trying to see how low
> I could go, and BTW I think 58 is considered OLD, not middle aged, even
> though my ancestors seem to be programmed for 100 years. That chance of
> the genes could explain me but I will have to wait and see if I am still
> hyper and running in another 20 years (at 78). I know I am not average.
>
> If so, you're either a complete
> > bull-shitter, or clueless (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume
> > you're clueless about realistic body fat percentages).
>
> I'm hardly clueless and not bull-shitting on this one. I have high bone
> density for one thing and don't break, but again I don't know why. My
> body fat was down to the point where my face even looked like I was in a
> POW camp and I looked for fat, anywhere, and could not find any.
> >
> > Of course, if you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claim,
please
> > post it (e.g., photos, caliper readings, etc.). As with most of your
claims
> > to fame, I'm sure you'll bluster and blubber...and not produce even one
> > shred of evidence. But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.
>
> I would except that I am back up to 180 pounds, which makes my wife
> happy but makes me feel fat. I took one picture at about 160 of me with
> no shirt and the bike and put it on my web site and got a load of shit
> for it, but no pictures of me at 142-143. About 155 is my goal for the
> summer but my wife just won't leave me alone when I get below that, so I
> don't think photo proof is in the near future. Like I said, everyone
> thought I had cancer and wanted to feed me, and due to my habit of
> riding with sweat shorts and a t shirt people were starting to look at
> me like I was a starving homeless person. I felt great but I think
> people are hard wired to think that older men should be heavier. Thin
> people do live longer but then younger people think you are sick so I
> can't win. If, and that's a big if, I do get down to that weight again
> and can convince my family to leave me do my own thing, I will post a
> photo or two or three. It was a bit much to have my grandkids think I
> was dying just because I wanted to be in mountain climbing shape.
> Sorry, I got too much family around me.
> Bill (not thin now) Baka

Or, to make a long-winded story short..."I have nothing to back up my claims
in this matter." No surprise, given your history of exaggeration.

GG

> >
> > GG
> >

Date: 20 Dec 2006 15:27:58
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

GaryG wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Za5ih.24314$wc5.4012@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> GaryG wrote:
>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> Laugh all you want but I had no detectable fat. There may have been
> some
>>>> internal fat but none on my exterior.
>>> I don't doubt that you were pretty lean (maybe as low as 10-12%)...but,
>>> there's no way in hell you were at 4% body fat. At that level, you
> would
>>> have distinctive six-pack abs, and the striations in individual muscles
>>> (e.g., chest, and lats) would be clearly visible.
>> I wasn't doing sit ups and shooting for the six pack look so I was just
>> plain skinny to the point where my ribs were showing. For some reason I
>> can do sit ups all day long and never get well defined abs, not even
>> when I was in high school and could do more than any one else in the
>> class.
>
> Thanks for once again illustrating your ignorance in this matter. At 4%
> body fat, you wouldn't need to be doing a whole lot of situps...your abs
> would be clearly visible simply due to the lack of fat covering them up. You
> would also be able to see the individual muscle bundles making up your quads
> and hamstrings. That you weren't this ripped is not surprising, and
> confirms that you weren't at the ridiculously low body fat percentage you
> claimed.
>
> FWIW, here's what one of the better exercise and fitness websites says about
> body fat:
>
> "At one extreme, male bodybuilders before a contest can drop their body fat
> to around 4-5%...These very low body fat percentages are generally
> maintained for only a short period, normally before a photo shoot or
> contest. Very low body fat percentages are extremely difficult to maintain
> for most people, since the body has metabolic and hormonal mechanisms in
> place to prevent what it perceives as a shortage of available resources."
>
> http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=13
>
> And these are trained and motivated competitors...not some middle aged guy
> on a mountain bike with no clue as to training, nutrition, etc. For us to
> believe that you were able to get down to 4%, in the absence of any proof,
> is simply ridiculous (as are most of your claims of grandeur).

You are either a presumptuous idiot or merely trying to support your own
delusions of superiority, so why should I waste my time with you?
I am way ster than you but choose not to rub it in on this board, and
I am not a run of the mill physical specimen. I'm glad you think 58 is
middle-aged, since for me it probably is and I have no intention of
kicking the bucket in front of a television at 72.
Stand in front of a mirror and argue with yourself, you might lose.
Bill Baka
>
>> I was the most fit kid in gym class, aerobically, yet never had
>> big muscles. For some reason I was able to do one armed chin ups yet did
>> not look strong enough to do two armed ones. Genetics again?
>>> FWIW, high school wrestlers generally compete at around 7% body fat.
> So,
>>> are you trying to tell us that, as a middle-aged man you had a lot less
> body
>>> fat than a high school athlete?
>> Yes, and it was intentional on my part since I was trying to see how low
>> I could go, and BTW I think 58 is considered OLD, not middle aged, even
>> though my ancestors seem to be programmed for 100 years. That chance of
>> the genes could explain me but I will have to wait and see if I am still
>> hyper and running in another 20 years (at 78). I know I am not average.
>>
>> If so, you're either a complete
>>> bull-shitter, or clueless (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
> assume
>>> you're clueless about realistic body fat percentages).
>> I'm hardly clueless and not bull-shitting on this one. I have high bone
>> density for one thing and don't break, but again I don't know why. My
>> body fat was down to the point where my face even looked like I was in a
>> POW camp and I looked for fat, anywhere, and could not find any.
>>> Of course, if you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claim,
> please
>>> post it (e.g., photos, caliper readings, etc.). As with most of your
> claims
>>> to fame, I'm sure you'll bluster and blubber...and not produce even one
>>> shred of evidence. But, hey, post your evidence and prove me wrong.
>> I would except that I am back up to 180 pounds, which makes my wife
>> happy but makes me feel fat. I took one picture at about 160 of me with
>> no shirt and the bike and put it on my web site and got a load of shit
>> for it, but no pictures of me at 142-143. About 155 is my goal for the
>> summer but my wife just won't leave me alone when I get below that, so I
>> don't think photo proof is in the near future. Like I said, everyone
>> thought I had cancer and wanted to feed me, and due to my habit of
>> riding with sweat shorts and a t shirt people were starting to look at
>> me like I was a starving homeless person. I felt great but I think
>> people are hard wired to think that older men should be heavier. Thin
>> people do live longer but then younger people think you are sick so I
>> can't win. If, and that's a big if, I do get down to that weight again
>> and can convince my family to leave me do my own thing, I will post a
>> photo or two or three. It was a bit much to have my grandkids think I
>> was dying just because I wanted to be in mountain climbing shape.
>> Sorry, I got too much family around me.
>> Bill (not thin now) Baka

Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:38:15
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Terry Morse wrote:

> That depends highy on the definiton on "recreational".

It means there's no prize for winning, and no team car following
to give you a new bike when you have a flat :-)

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:17:11
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:3t13o2dii90vkipq7um7fliem7ov5spf1h@4ax.com
:: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
:: <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote:
::
::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
::: days and so on.
:::
::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example would
::: 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90 minutes
::: every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
::: once each week?
:::
::: TIA, EJ in NJ
::
:: Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar,
:: binging), I have to hit above 150miles/week at a modest
:: tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to achieve
:: weight loss. Cycling is just not that strenuous at
:: recreational levels.

This is just complete nonsense. Exercise doesn't need to be strenuous to aid
in weight loss. All it needs to do is burn calories. The rest has to do
with how much you eat in relation to what it takes to maintain current
weight. As long as you're not eating too much, one can lose weight on any
amount of exercising (including zero). Your problem is you're simply eating
too much to achieve weight loss on less riding than that amount. It has
little to do with strenuous.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:54:35
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:17:11 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
>news:3t13o2dii90vkipq7um7fliem7ov5spf1h@4ax.com
>:: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
>:: <ewillson@patmedia.net> wrote:
>::
>::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
>::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
>::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
>::: days and so on.
>:::
>::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
>::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example would
>::: 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90 minutes
>::: every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
>::: once each week?
>:::
>::: TIA, EJ in NJ
>::
>:: Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar,
>:: binging), I have to hit above 150miles/week at a modest
>:: tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to achieve
>:: weight loss. Cycling is just not that strenuous at
>:: recreational levels.
>
>This is just complete nonsense. Exercise doesn't need to be strenuous to aid
>in weight loss. All it needs to do is burn calories. The rest has to do
>with how much you eat in relation to what it takes to maintain current
>weight. As long as you're not eating too much, one can lose weight on any
>amount of exercising (including zero). Your problem is you're simply eating
>too much to achieve weight loss on less riding than that amount. It has
>little to do with strenuous.

BTW, you might cite yourself as an excellent example of how hard it is to
lose weight cycling. You've been stuck at 230-240lbs for several years and
you ride centuries, correct?

Why not just lose that additional 40-50lbs and be slim and trim?

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:34:59
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:j8o5o2ddsicnt25fljvbom777garn6glpp@4ax.com
:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:17:11 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::
::: "Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
::: news:3t13o2dii90vkipq7um7fliem7ov5spf1h@4ax.com
::::: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
::::: <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote:
:::::
:::::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
:::::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
:::::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
:::::: days and so on.
::::::
:::::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
:::::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example
:::::: would 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90
:::::: minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times
:::::: 7) minutes once each week?
::::::
:::::: TIA, EJ in NJ
:::::
::::: Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar,
::::: binging), I have to hit above 150miles/week at a
::::: modest tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to
::::: achieve weight loss. Cycling is just not that
::::: strenuous at recreational levels.
:::
::: This is just complete nonsense. Exercise doesn't need
::: to be strenuous to aid in weight loss. All it needs to
::: do is burn calories. The rest has to do with how much
::: you eat in relation to what it takes to maintain
::: current weight. As long as you're not eating too much,
::: one can lose weight on any amount of exercising
::: (including zero). Your problem is you're simply eating
::: too much to achieve weight loss on less riding than
::: that amount. It has little to do with strenuous.
::
:: BTW, you might cite yourself as an excellent example of
:: how hard it is to lose weight cycling. You've been stuck
:: at 230-240lbs for several years and you ride centuries,
:: correct?

More like 225 - 230, but not stuck.

::
:: Why not just lose that additional 40-50lbs and be slim
:: and trim?

Personal choice. For one thing, I'd like too skinny at that weight (though
I'd be faster). For another, I'd have too much extra skin. Remember, I used
to weigh 367 lbs.

The difference here is that I don't claim that cycling is not good for
weight loss because I *choose* not to continue to lose weight. I simply
have been content to stay at my present weight. I don't ride for weight
loss, I ride for enjoyment and health benefits. And I continue to lift.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:34:37
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:17:11 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
>news:3t13o2dii90vkipq7um7fliem7ov5spf1h@4ax.com
>:: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
>:: <ewillson@patmedia.net> wrote:
>::
>::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
>::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
>::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
>::: days and so on.
>:::
>::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
>::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example would
>::: 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90 minutes
>::: every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
>::: once each week?
>:::
>::: TIA, EJ in NJ
>::
>:: Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar,
>:: binging), I have to hit above 150miles/week at a modest
>:: tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to achieve
>:: weight loss. Cycling is just not that strenuous at
>:: recreational levels.
>
>This is just complete nonsense. Exercise doesn't need to be strenuous to aid
>in weight loss. All it needs to do is burn calories. The rest has to do
>with how much you eat in relation to what it takes to maintain current
>weight. As long as you're not eating too much, one can lose weight on any
>amount of exercising (including zero). Your problem is you're simply eating
>too much to achieve weight loss on less riding than that amount. It has
>little to do with strenuous.

You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what actually happened to
me. I was on a fairly strict LC diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles
per week just does not result in significant weight loss at my age, even
with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it doesn't fit your experience
or expectations.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 10:49:43
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Set<@setnet.com > wrote:

> Riding from 80-100 miles per week just does not result in
> significant weight loss at my age, even with a moderately
> strict LC diet.

100 miles at a modeerately brisk pace should burn about 4000
calories. If your diet stays the same, you will lose about a pound
per week at that rate. Age is irrelevant in this calculation.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com

Date: 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:33n5o2hm1hkrpf81kn619mbdiau83knm1r@4ax.com
:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:17:11 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::
::: "Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
::: news:3t13o2dii90vkipq7um7fliem7ov5spf1h@4ax.com
::::: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
::::: <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote:
:::::
:::::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
:::::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
:::::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
:::::: days and so on.
::::::
:::::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
:::::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example
:::::: would 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90
:::::: minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times
:::::: 7) minutes once each week?
::::::
:::::: TIA, EJ in NJ
:::::
::::: Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar,
::::: binging), I have to hit above 150miles/week at a
::::: modest tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to
::::: achieve weight loss. Cycling is just not that
::::: strenuous at recreational levels.
:::
::: This is just complete nonsense. Exercise doesn't need
::: to be strenuous to aid in weight loss. All it needs to
::: do is burn calories. The rest has to do with how much
::: you eat in relation to what it takes to maintain
::: current weight. As long as you're not eating too much,
::: one can lose weight on any amount of exercising
::: (including zero). Your problem is you're simply eating
::: too much to achieve weight loss on less riding than
::: that amount. It has little to do with strenuous.
::
:: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
:: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
:: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week just
:: does not result in significant weight loss at my age,
:: even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it
:: doesn't fit your experience or expectations.

Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that to happen you'd have
to do with I do. Frankly, I don't think you are and I don't think you
really know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
it using cycling.

No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will result in weight loss if
you eat too much. It doesn't matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
(especially if you aren't counting calories). The amount of cycling you did,
with no mention how much you ate, and what you're requirements are for
maintance, lead to the conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to weight
loss. Nonsense.

I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles, without weight loss. How
can this be? I wasn't trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
loss by simply counting exercise.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:09:21
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>:: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
>:: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
>:: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week just
>:: does not result in significant weight loss at my age,
>:: even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it
>:: doesn't fit your experience or expectations.
>
>Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that to happen you'd have
>to do with I do. Frankly, I don't think you are and I don't think you
>really know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
>it using cycling.

No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k miles per year,
70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.

>No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will result in weight loss if
>you eat too much. It doesn't matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
>(especially if you aren't counting calories).

I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is that there are
hidden calories - handful of nuts here, couple of dabs of ketchup there,
maybe a few extra glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy expenditure the remainder
of the day, rest more, lie on the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm
not talking about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that until
-I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what I do short of near
starvation, I don't start losing appreciable weight. OK?

>The amount of cycling you did,
>with no mention how much you ate, and what you're requirements are for
>maintance, lead to the conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
>correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
>Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to weight
>loss. Nonsense.

I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure than most people
think, at recreational rider levels. Maybe too much freewheeling?

>I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles, without weight loss. How
>can this be? I wasn't trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
>loss by simply counting exercise.

Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you could lose those last
30lbs. Thing is, even when you get stricter in your diet, you just can't
lose it, no matter what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)

There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there past 40 or 50 who
weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And what about 'master fattie'. Those guys
do everything to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:24:41
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:tnv5o2ljk0b3asbovg0i0j9e36t063c8te@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >:: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
> >:: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
> >:: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week just
> >:: does not result in significant weight loss at my age,
> >:: even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it
> >:: doesn't fit your experience or expectations.
> >
> >Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that to happen you'd
have
> >to do with I do. Frankly, I don't think you are and I don't think you
> >really know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to
do
> >it using cycling.
>
> No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k miles per year,
> 70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.
>
> >No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will result in weight loss
if
> >you eat too much. It doesn't matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
> >(especially if you aren't counting calories).
>
> I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is that there are
> hidden calories - handful of nuts here, couple of dabs of ketchup there,
> maybe a few extra glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
> 100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy expenditure the remainder
> of the day, rest more, lie on the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm
> not talking about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that until
> -I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what I do short of near
> starvation, I don't start losing appreciable weight. OK?
>
> >The amount of cycling you did,
> >with no mention how much you ate, and what you're requirements are for
> >maintance, lead to the conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
> >correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
> >Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to
weight
> >loss. Nonsense.
>
> I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure than most people
> think, at recreational rider levels. Maybe too much freewheeling?

Say what?? Cycling is an *excellent* way to burn calories! The rule of
thumb is about 40 calories per mile. And, unlike running or swimming, with
cycling you can keep going for hours...it's a whole lot easier to burn 2000
calories on the bike (by riding 50 miles) than it is by running (which would
require about a 20 mile run).

>
> >I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles, without weight loss.
How
> >can this be? I wasn't trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
> >loss by simply counting exercise.
>
> Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you could lose those last
> 30lbs. Thing is, even when you get stricter in your diet, you just can't
> lose it, no matter what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)

Of course you can lose it...nobody is immune to the laws of thermodynamics.

>
> There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there past 40 or 50 who
> weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And what about 'master fattie'. Those guys
> do everything to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

They may be "dedicated riders", but if they weight that much then they're
also "dedicated eaters".

It just goes to show how easy it is to subvert a good exercise program with
a few poor food choices each week.

FWIW, I just turned 54 years old, and average about 90 miles per week year
round. At one time, I too was nearly 200 lbs. But, then I got serious
about exercise, and watching what I shoved into my pie hole. And for the
last few years, I've averaged 168 lbs (and I'm 6' tall). It's not rocket
science.

GG

>
>

Date: 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:24:41 -0800, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >
wrote:

>Of course you can lose it...nobody is immune to the laws of thermodynamics.
>
>>
>> There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there past 40 or 50 who
>> weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And what about 'master fattie'. Those guys
>> do everything to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.
>
>They may be "dedicated riders", but if they weight that much then they're
>also "dedicated eaters".
>
>It just goes to show how easy it is to subvert a good exercise program with
>a few poor food choices each week.
>
>FWIW, I just turned 54 years old, and average about 90 miles per week year
>round. At one time, I too was nearly 200 lbs. But, then I got serious
>about exercise, and watching what I shoved into my pie hole. And for the
>last few years, I've averaged 168 lbs (and I'm 6' tall). It's not rocket
>science.
>
>GG

You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep it
off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
requires more strictness.

Good job, though!

Date: 16 Dec 2006 22:01:44
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16 -0500, Set<@setnet.com > wrote:

>You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep it
>off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
>exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
>requires more strictness.

Do you have references for these assertions?

Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:44:13
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr > wrote in message
news:nin8o21k3msvj7r5htovnnk8ckifaugtdt@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16 -0500, Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
>
>>You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep it
>>off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
>>exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
>>requires more strictness.
>
> Do you have references for these assertions?

With decreasing metabolism he is mainly right. It slows your absorption of
food and the speed at which your muscles can burn it.
All processes are slowed down 'cept a couple organs I can think of.
Very important then to stay in shape. That is why children and seniors are
more susceptible to illness. If a child or pensioner was working 8 hours a
day they would not be as seriously ill when the flu comes around. Exposure
to people at work and school being variables.

>>requires more strictness

I would say requires more experience. If you know what is going to happen,
you can start training for it now. It is suppose to be a life long
attitude.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 02:26:20
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

nash wrote:
> "Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:nin8o21k3msvj7r5htovnnk8ckifaugtdt@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16 -0500, Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep it
>>> off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
>>> exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
>>> requires more strictness.
>> Do you have references for these assertions?
>
> With decreasing metabolism he is mainly right. It slows your absorption of
> food and the speed at which your muscles can burn it.
> All processes are slowed down 'cept a couple organs I can think of.
> Very important then to stay in shape. That is why children and seniors are
> more susceptible to illness. If a child or pensioner was working 8 hours a
> day they would not be as seriously ill when the flu comes around. Exposure
> to people at work and school being variables.
>
>>> requires more strictness
>
> I would say requires more experience. If you know what is going to happen,
> you can start training for it now. It is suppose to be a life long
> attitude.
>
>
I always say I am training for a Century, not the miles kind, but the
years kind. Cycling at 100 years old trumps being rich and in a
wheelchair at 65 any time in my book.
Bill Baka

Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:30:35
From: GaryG
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:NMZgh.496123$R63.179149@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:nin8o21k3msvj7r5htovnnk8ckifaugtdt@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16 -0500, Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep
it
> >>off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
> >>exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
> >>requires more strictness.
> >
> > Do you have references for these assertions?
>
> With decreasing metabolism he is mainly right. It slows your absorption
of
> food and the speed at which your muscles can burn it.

The effect is real, but fairly small. For a 6' 170 lb male who is
"moderately active", the estimate for daily calories burned changes from
2598 calories per day at age 53, to 2588 calories per day at age 54...so,
only 10 calories per day difference.

GG

> All processes are slowed down 'cept a couple organs I can think of.
> Very important then to stay in shape. That is why children and seniors
are
> more susceptible to illness. If a child or pensioner was working 8 hours
a
> day they would not be as seriously ill when the flu comes around.
Exposure
> to people at work and school being variables.
>
> >>requires more strictness
>
> I would say requires more experience. If you know what is going to
happen,
> you can start training for it now. It is suppose to be a life long
> attitude.
>
>

Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:52:50
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message
news:pg%gh.106$2Y2.100@newsfe03.lga...
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:NMZgh.496123$R63.179149@pd7urf1no...
>>
>> "Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr> wrote in message
>> news:nin8o21k3msvj7r5htovnnk8ckifaugtdt@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16 -0500, Set<@setnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep
> it
>> >>off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
>> >>exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
>> >>requires more strictness.
>> >
>> > Do you have references for these assertions?
>>
>> With decreasing metabolism he is mainly right. It slows your absorption
> of
>> food and the speed at which your muscles can burn it.
>
> The effect is real, but fairly small. For a 6' 170 lb male who is
> "moderately active", the estimate for daily calories burned changes from
> 2598 calories per day at age 53, to 2588 calories per day at age 54...so,
> only 10 calories per day difference.
>
> GG
>
>> All processes are slowed down 'cept a couple organs I can think of.
>> Very important then to stay in shape. That is why children and seniors
> are
>> more susceptible to illness. If a child or pensioner was working 8 hours
> a
>> day they would not be as seriously ill when the flu comes around.
> Exposure
>> to people at work and school being variables.
>>
>> >>requires more strictness
>>
>> I would say requires more experience. If you know what is going to
> happen,
>> you can start training for it now. It is suppose to be a life long
>> attitude.

true 10 calories a day for some is nothing.
10/day x 365 is a problem for others. That equals one pound a year or one
inch on the waist/ yr as they say. The problem really arises when they burn
slower but eat the same as they did twenty years ago and in the future also.
That one difference is the key to everything. Same as a mother eating for
two when she is no longer pregnant. Same psychology that is.
If you could kick that habit no one would be overweight I am quite sure. It
is overeating plain and simple. We buy things we do not need we eat when we
are not hungry. Blame N. American culture. But try to turn it around and
get rid of bad habits. Why else does N. America have the worst health in
the world practically.
If your BMI is outside normal you are going to be more sick. From lack of
money or lack of knowledge, and a combination, is the main reason anyone is
sick or overweight. I consider them one in the same. Change your attitude,
change your life. Do not procrastinate either. volunteer if you have time.
Donate. You probably do not need alot of stuff if you are a compulsive
buyer.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 18:51:31
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message
news:pg%gh.106$2Y2.100@newsfe03.lga
:: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
:: news:NMZgh.496123$R63.179149@pd7urf1no...
:::
::: "Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr > wrote in message
::: news:nin8o21k3msvj7r5htovnnk8ckifaugtdt@4ax.com...
:::: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:31:16 -0500, Set<@setnet.com >
:::: wrote:
::::
::::: You are an exception. The number of people who can
::::: lose weight and keep it off for five years is
::::: -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
::::: exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain
::::: weight, so each year requires more strictness.
::::
:::: Do you have references for these assertions?
:::
::: With decreasing metabolism he is mainly right. It
::: slows your absorption of food and the speed at which
::: your muscles can burn it.
::
:: The effect is real, but fairly small. For a 6' 170 lb
:: male who is "moderately active", the estimate for daily
:: calories burned changes from 2598 calories per day at
:: age 53, to 2588 calories per day at age 54...so, only 10
:: calories per day difference.
::

the effect is huge if you think the way "set" does, as you automatically
assume that you're going to gain weight as you grow older, you simply "let"
it happen. Just because it happens in the general population doesn't mean it
must happen to everyone.

:: GG
::
::: All processes are slowed down 'cept a couple organs I
::: can think of.
::: Very important then to stay in shape. That is why
::: children and seniors are more susceptible to illness.
::: If a child or pensioner was working 8 hours a day they
::: would not be as seriously ill when the flu comes
::: around. Exposure to people at work and school being
::: variables.
:::
::::: requires more strictness
:::
::: I would say requires more experience. If you know what
::: is going to happen, you can start training for it now.
::: It is suppose to be a life long attitude.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:29:45
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:tnv5o2ljk0b3asbovg0i0j9e36t063c8te@4ax.com
:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::
::::: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
::::: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
::::: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week
::::: just does not result in significant weight loss at my
::::: age, even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if
::::: it doesn't fit your experience or expectations.
:::
::: Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that
::: to happen you'd have to do with I do. Frankly, I don't
::: think you are and I don't think you really know what it
::: required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
::: it using cycling.
::
:: No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k
:: miles per year, 70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.
::

I don't think how much you ride is really at the issue, however. That's
plenty to achieve weight loss.

::: No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will
::: result in weight loss if you eat too much. It doesn't
::: matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not (especially
::: if you aren't counting calories).
::
:: I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is
:: that there are hidden calories - handful of nuts here,
:: couple of dabs of ketchup there, maybe a few extra
:: glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
:: 100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy
:: expenditure the remainder of the day, rest more, lie on
:: the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm not talking
:: about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that
:: until -I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what
:: I do short of near starvation, I don't start losing
:: appreciable weight. OK?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "near starvation". You can ride way
less than 150+ miles a week and lose weight, without starving. Most people
who lose weight do exactly that.

::
::: The amount of cycling you did,
::: with no mention how much you ate, and what you're
::: requirements are for maintance, lead to the conclusion
::: that you didn't pay attention to the correct variables
::: in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
::: Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous
::: enough to lead to weight loss. Nonsense.
::
:: I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure
:: than most people think, at recreational rider levels.
:: Maybe too much freewheeling?

What are you basing this on? You'll burn about 4000 calories in 100 miles.
That bearly over 1 lb in a week. That's a reasonable about to burn over a
week too, from exercise. Hence, if you eat at maintanence, you should be
able to lose 1 lb a week from riding 100 miles.

::
::: I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles,
::: without weight loss. How can this be? I wasn't trying
::: to lose weight. You can't determine weight loss by
::: simply counting exercise.
::
:: Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you
:: could lose those last 30lbs. Thing is, even when you get
:: stricter in your diet, you just can't lose it, no matter
:: what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)

:)

I think you're bumping up on what people are willing to do to lose weight
rather than what cycling will do. The closer to goal you get the harder it
will be. And, people who tend to carry extra weight do so because they have
a propensity to do so (my personal belief) which then means that for them,
losing those last few pounds may be really, really hard. BUT, that's not
cycling's fault....it's just some people aren't or won't be able to muster
the stuff to climb that last weight loss hill.

::
:: There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there
:: past 40 or 50 who weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And
:: what about 'master fattie'. Those guys do everything to
:: lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

What is 'master fattie'? Anyway, okay, I don't disagree. But riding a bike
ain't a guarantee of weight loss because it's only of secondary importance
to diet for weight loss. And, I find that riding too much can impair weight
loss because it might cause a person to want to eat too much. Sometimes,
less is more.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:57:17
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:29:45 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>"Set" <@setnet.com> wrote in message
>news:tnv5o2ljk0b3asbovg0i0j9e36t063c8te@4ax.com
>:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
>:: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>::
>::::: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
>::::: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
>::::: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week
>::::: just does not result in significant weight loss at my
>::::: age, even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if
>::::: it doesn't fit your experience or expectations.
>:::
>::: Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that
>::: to happen you'd have to do with I do. Frankly, I don't
>::: think you are and I don't think you really know what it
>::: required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
>::: it using cycling.
>::
>:: No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k
>:: miles per year, 70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.
>::
>
>I don't think how much you ride is really at the issue, however. That's
>plenty to achieve weight loss.

Yet it doesn't happen. Believe me, I'm pretty surprised. Again, just
reporting my results.

>::: No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will
>::: result in weight loss if you eat too much. It doesn't
>::: matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not (especially
>::: if you aren't counting calories).
>::
>:: I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is
>:: that there are hidden calories - handful of nuts here,
>:: couple of dabs of ketchup there, maybe a few extra
>:: glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
>:: 100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy
>:: expenditure the remainder of the day, rest more, lie on
>:: the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm not talking
>:: about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that
>:: until -I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what
>:: I do short of near starvation, I don't start losing
>:: appreciable weight. OK?
>
>I guess it depends on what you mean by "near starvation". You can ride way
>less than 150+ miles a week and lose weight, without starving. Most people
>who lose weight do exactly that.

OK typical eating when doing strict LC is one cup steak cubes for
breakfast, hburger on lettuce for lunch, chicken, burger or fish for
dinner, with one side dish of veggies. No sugar. No obvious carbs. Nada
white carbs. Unlimited drinks. (coffee, milk, unsweetened sodas). Snacks
were handful of nuts, cheese, fried egg. Chocolate milk or replacement
drink in the hour window.

>::: The amount of cycling you did,
>::: with no mention how much you ate, and what you're
>::: requirements are for maintance, lead to the conclusion
>::: that you didn't pay attention to the correct variables
>::: in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
>::: Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous
>::: enough to lead to weight loss. Nonsense.
>::
>:: I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure
>:: than most people think, at recreational rider levels.
>:: Maybe too much freewheeling?
>
>What are you basing this on? You'll burn about 4000 calories in 100 miles.
>That bearly over 1 lb in a week. That's a reasonable about to burn over a
>week too, from exercise. Hence, if you eat at maintanence, you should be
>able to lose 1 lb a week from riding 100 miles.

You'd think that wouldn't you. Maybe the estimates are too high the loss
too gradual? Like many I probably go impreceptively off plan when losses
aren't too obvious (motivational). Maybe the caloric estimate for cycling
it too high in the books for people >40-50? Maybe being insulin resistant
just makes it too easy to put every unexpended calorie into fat storage in
certain people. I think it's common among overweight, but dedicated
cyclists.

>::: I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles,
>::: without weight loss. How can this be? I wasn't trying
>::: to lose weight. You can't determine weight loss by
>::: simply counting exercise.
>::
>:: Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you
>:: could lose those last 30lbs. Thing is, even when you get
>:: stricter in your diet, you just can't lose it, no matter
>:: what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)
>
>:)
>
>I think you're bumping up on what people are willing to do to lose weight
>rather than what cycling will do. The closer to goal you get the harder it
>will be. And, people who tend to carry extra weight do so because they have
>a propensity to do so (my personal belief) which then means that for them,
>losing those last few pounds may be really, really hard. BUT, that's not
>cycling's fault....it's just some people aren't or won't be able to muster
>the stuff to climb that last weight loss hill.

Makes sense. Note that even if we do everything the same, the books say
that people gain x% increase in our weight every year after middle age.
(Clearly some people remain rail thin, probably no matter what they eat.
That's got to be the other side of the coin, n'est ce pas). Maybe we're all
victims of our thyroids.

>:: There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there
>:: past 40 or 50 who weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And
>:: what about 'master fattie'. Those guys do everything to
>:: lose that last little bit and it never comes off.
>
>What is 'master fattie'? Anyway, okay, I don't disagree. But riding a bike
>ain't a guarantee of weight loss because it's only of secondary importance
>to diet for weight loss. And, I find that riding too much can impair weight
>loss because it might cause a person to want to eat too much. Sometimes,
>less is more.

Yeah. Sure. Again, just sayin' for me, I start to lose at a certain level
or distance - multifactorial, feedback loop inhibited, yada, yada. ymmv.

Just as an aside, that gap between riding 80-100 miles per week and riding
150-160 miles per week is a pretty big threshold in more ways than one (at
least for me). Even riding a flat course, I was having to get extra rest
just to be able to cope with ~23 mi/day every day for weeks on end (that's
prob. mostly mental/psychological), whereas 12-15 mi per week is pretty
doable just with normal living.

I've made the jump several times. I've also spend a few weeks only getting
40-50 miles here and there. I'm hoping the trend is upwards, though.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:27:39
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

You are going to die from cholesterol if you were not brought up to eat that
way.
Protein the size of a deck of cards is what you are suppose to eat per day.
That is what I try to do. Protein, stays in my system longer and gets me
constipated to boot.
There are diets for blood types now. Do not know how good they work.
I am not suppose to like tomatoes like farmer types would but I do. Don't
know what being a farmer has to do with blood type but that is what I heard.
They would grow up eating anything they grew so I think that is why their
blood type has no restrictions. Guess I am not in tune with my blood now?
Salsa turned me on to eating all my tomatoes. Before that I did not really
seek tomatoes, though I love tomato soup and ketchup.
I rely on physiology to know what is right for me and my body type.

BTW 250lbs on a large frame does not mean you are fat. No wonder they
cannot lose weight. Cycling does not add bulk and is healthier than just
weight lifting for health.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:32:57
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

Okay, have you tried just looking at food instead of eating it.
Does that put the weight on too?

Date: 16 Dec 2006 18:48:50
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message

:: Okay, have you tried just looking at food instead of
:: eating it. Does that put the weight on too?

:)

Date: 15 Dec 2006 16:08:08
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:ap16o2lte4268kqu24b5t6ipl6l1j82s2b@4ax.com
:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:29:45 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::
::: "Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
::: news:tnv5o2ljk0b3asbovg0i0j9e36t063c8te@4ax.com
::::: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
::::: <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
:::::
:::::::: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating
:::::::: what actually happened to me. I was on a fairly
:::::::: strict LC diet at the time. Riding from 80-100
:::::::: miles per week just does not result in significant
:::::::: weight loss at my age, even with a moderately
:::::::: strict LC diet. Sorry if it doesn't fit your
:::::::: experience or expectations.
::::::
:::::: Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that
:::::: to happen you'd have to do with I do. Frankly, I
:::::: don't think you are and I don't think you really
:::::: know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't
:::::: been able to do it using cycling.
:::::
::::: No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about
::::: 3.5k miles per year, 70-80/week, a bit higher in
::::: summer.
:::::
:::
::: I don't think how much you ride is really at the issue,
::: however. That's plenty to achieve weight loss.
::
:: Yet it doesn't happen. Believe me, I'm pretty surprised.
:: Again, just reporting my results.
::
:::::: No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will
:::::: result in weight loss if you eat too much. It doesn't
:::::: matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
:::::: (especially if you aren't counting calories).
:::::
::::: I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening
::::: is that there are hidden calories - handful of nuts
::::: here, couple of dabs of ketchup there, maybe a few
::::: extra glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the
::::: level of 100mi/week people tend to slack off their
::::: energy expenditure the remainder of the day, rest
::::: more, lie on the couch all day Sunday. I don't know.
::::: I'm not talking about breaking the laws of physics.
::::: I'm just saying that until -I- get up to 150+ miles
::::: per week, no matter what I do short of near
::::: starvation, I don't start losing appreciable weight.
::::: OK?
:::
::: I guess it depends on what you mean by "near
::: starvation". You can ride way less than 150+ miles a
::: week and lose weight, without starving. Most people
::: who lose weight do exactly that.
::
:: OK typical eating when doing strict LC is one cup steak
:: cubes for breakfast, hburger on lettuce for lunch,
:: chicken, burger or fish for dinner, with one side dish
:: of veggies.

That doesn't sound like much, I admit. I don't think I'd last long on that.

No sugar. No obvious carbs. Nada white
:: carbs. Unlimited drinks. (coffee, milk, unsweetened
:: sodas). Snacks were handful of nuts, cheese, fried egg.

Now these snacks can be real killers. If you have big hands, a handful of
nuts can have over 200 kcals. Add some cheese and there goes your weight
loss, or at least slows it down a lot so it becomes harder to notice.

:: Chocolate milk or replacement drink in the hour window.

Yeah, gotta recover! :)

::
:::::: The amount of cycling you did,
:::::: with no mention how much you ate, and what you're
:::::: requirements are for maintance, lead to the
:::::: conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
:::::: correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't
:::::: achieve weight loss. Now, you're claiming that
:::::: cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to weight
:::::: loss. Nonsense.
:::::
::::: I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure
::::: than most people think, at recreational rider levels.
::::: Maybe too much freewheeling?
:::
::: What are you basing this on? You'll burn about 4000
::: calories in 100 miles. That bearly over 1 lb in a week.
::: That's a reasonable about to burn over a week too, from
::: exercise. Hence, if you eat at maintanence, you should
::: be able to lose 1 lb a week from riding 100 miles.
::
:: You'd think that wouldn't you. Maybe the estimates are
:: too high the loss too gradual?

Could be. But, as you likely know, slower is better in terms of keeping it
off.

Like many I probably go
:: impreceptively off plan when losses aren't too obvious
:: (motivational). Maybe the caloric estimate for cycling
:: it too high in the books for people >40-50?

Could be, too. Weight lifting is good to help keep the metabolism up,
though.

Maybe being
:: insulin resistant just makes it too easy to put every
:: unexpended calorie into fat storage in certain people. I
:: think it's common among overweight, but dedicated
:: cyclists.

IR can be a real problem. Weight lifting helps there too.

::
:::::: I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles,
:::::: without weight loss. How can this be? I wasn't
:::::: trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
:::::: loss by simply counting exercise.
:::::
::::: Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you
::::: could lose those last 30lbs. Thing is, even when you
::::: get stricter in your diet, you just can't lose it, no
::::: matter what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life?
::::: ;-)
:::
::: :)
:::
::: I think you're bumping up on what people are willing to
::: do to lose weight rather than what cycling will do. The
::: closer to goal you get the harder it will be. And,
::: people who tend to carry extra weight do so because
::: they have a propensity to do so (my personal belief)
::: which then means that for them, losing those last few
::: pounds may be really, really hard. BUT, that's not
::: cycling's fault....it's just some people aren't or
::: won't be able to muster the stuff to climb that last
::: weight loss hill.
::
:: Makes sense. Note that even if we do everything the
:: same, the books say that people gain x% increase in our
:: weight every year after middle age. (Clearly some people
:: remain rail thin, probably no matter what they eat.
:: That's got to be the other side of the coin, n'est ce
:: pas). Maybe we're all victims of our thyroids.

Perhaps. But going by books that sample everyday people who are couch
potatoes probably ain't a good idea. Personally, I don't sweat this too
much, as long as I'm doing what I want to do and feel good doing it. If I
were 25, I might have different notions.

::
::::: There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there
::::: past 40 or 50 who weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And
::::: what about 'master fattie'. Those guys do everything
::::: to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.
:::
::: What is 'master fattie'? Anyway, okay, I don't
::: disagree. But riding a bike ain't a guarantee of weight
::: loss because it's only of secondary importance to diet
::: for weight loss. And, I find that riding too much can
::: impair weight loss because it might cause a person to
::: want to eat too much. Sometimes, less is more.
::
:: Yeah. Sure. Again, just sayin' for me, I start to lose
:: at a certain level or distance - multifactorial,
:: feedback loop inhibited, yada, yada. ymmv.
::
:: Just as an aside, that gap between riding 80-100 miles
:: per week and riding 150-160 miles per week is a pretty
:: big threshold in more ways than one (at least for me).

Me too. I can do 80-100 on the weekends alone...but I need to ride weekdays
in the evening to get to 150. That's just the way it's going to be for me.
I'm good with that level too. I only get that in the summer, though. I could
do more, but then it would be like working! :)

:: Even riding a flat course, I was having to get extra
:: rest just to be able to cope with ~23 mi/day every day
:: for weeks on end (that's prob. mostly
:: mental/psychological), whereas 12-15 mi per week is
:: pretty doable just with normal living.

All that riding makes you rest well, right?

::
:: I've made the jump several times. I've also spend a few
:: weeks only getting 40-50 miles here and there. I'm
:: hoping the trend is upwards, though.

Yeah, I think it happens for everyone. I spent some portion of the year
traveling, so I took a hit on the miles. That's what life is about --
adapting to the situation.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 17:53:39
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

>>>>You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what actually happened
>>>>to
> me. I was on a fairly strict LC diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles
> per week just does not result in significant weight loss at my age, even
> with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it doesn't fit your experience
> or expectations.

Some people like me can stay slim just by not eating more than you use.
I do not ride 35 miles a week anymore and I do not do physical labor lifting
a ton of mail a day. That is what he means. There are many factors we do
not know about you like leanness, metabolism, age, etc so I could not say it
is not right for you. Maybe it's the LC diet. Like I said a while ago you
need to stomach hungry not mouth hungry.
Cardiologist diet: If it tastes good spit it out. : + )

Date: 15 Dec 2006 13:24:29
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:53:39 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:

>>>>>You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what actually happened
>>>>>to
>> me. I was on a fairly strict LC diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles
>> per week just does not result in significant weight loss at my age, even
>> with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it doesn't fit your experience
>> or expectations.
>
>
>Some people like me can stay slim just by not eating more than you use.
>I do not ride 35 miles a week anymore and I do not do physical labor lifting
>a ton of mail a day. That is what he means. There are many factors we do
>not know about you like leanness, metabolism, age, etc so I could not say it
>is not right for you. Maybe it's the LC diet. Like I said a while ago you
>need to stomach hungry not mouth hungry.
>Cardiologist diet: If it tastes good spit it out. : + )

He probably means something else, such as 'by the book'. But he's an
excellent example (no diss intended) of the difficulty of losing weight by
cycling. ;-)

Might have something to do with the body's set point, or insulin
resistance. Don't know. It's probably advantageous, survival-wise, but not
so much in times of relative plenty.

I -thought- that by working up a good sweat for 40 min a day along with
fairly normal eating, but it doesn't until I -really- restrict calories.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:26:45
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

>>>>>I -thought- that by working up a good sweat for 40 min a day along with
fairly normal eating, but it doesn't until I -really- restrict calories.

Working up a sweat for 40 minutes a day is more than I want to do and the
restricting calories may be good depends on each person.
But besides the fun of exercising outdoors once you start being more active
you are less hungry anyway.
That is exercise's side effect.
Also, the release of endorphins make you high.
all good yah!
So Just do it. If I can borrow a household phrase.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 02:19:13
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

nash wrote:
>>>>>> I -thought- that by working up a good sweat for 40 min a day along with
> fairly normal eating, but it doesn't until I -really- restrict calories.
>
> Working up a sweat for 40 minutes a day is more than I want to do and the
> restricting calories may be good depends on each person.
> But besides the fun of exercising outdoors once you start being more active
> you are less hungry anyway.
> That is exercise's side effect.
> Also, the release of endorphins make you high.
> all good yah!
> So Just do it. If I can borrow a household phrase.
>
>
Just an add on here, but I used to ride up a sweat for 40 minutes then
take a break at home for 20 minutes, then repeat 4 or 5 times a day
during the summer, and even with a healthy food intake I got so skinny
people thought I had cancer or something. I never felt better in the
last 30 years and even got into a pair of jeans my wife wore 20 years
ago, wondering why the legs were so short. Pissed her off but good, but
I lost about 35 pounds in maybe 4 months that way. I did not watch my
diet in any way except to aim it at my mouth.
Bill Baka

Date: 14 Dec 2006 18:37:58
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes
>once each week?

Weekend warriors are more likely to die on their sword.
Has to be regular and HR has to be 75% of max.
3 X a week. Once you get in the shape you want the maintenance routine
could be a little less.

If you did what you said above you might be sore for a week and end up doing
it again and again only once a week. Even sore, a little exercise will
make you stronger faster. Blood circulation at the increased level hastens
the healing by increasing the fuel to the area and taking away the garbage
(CO2).
45 min/day or 90min every second day depends on the intensity. Recreational
riding is still beneficial but faster will give you a training effect.
Walking 2 miles a day may be all you need if you are just looking to firm up
and lose weight. It is aerobic too for good overall fitness. The distance
and time is the more important measurement, plus HR of course.
Cardiovascular fitness will keep you out of the hospital.

SN

Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:15:53
From: nash
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Ernie Willson" <ewillson@patmedia.net > wrote in message
news:45817f93$0$1607$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding. This
>could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes
>every 4 days and so on.
>
> This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
> weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective that
> 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes once
> each week?
>
> TIA, EJ in NJ

I think you are right on. Not every day is a good riding day here in the
Wild wild Wet. If it makes me feel good I know I am doing it right. Most
people forget about the endorphins that help your mood. More O2 to the
brain is uplifting too and you will think better and feel positive.
As for losing weight. We just had a thread on that.
Very complicated stuff. Kenneth Cooper's Aerobic books would help you out
alot. He has been training people all his life and is used in University PE
faculties. Mine at least. Anything you get here you have to take with a
grain of salt. Good people get shot down. Just all the more confusing.
Heart Rate monitoring with just a fingers on a pulse is the best way.
Target HR for at least 5 minutes results in a training affect on the heart
and lungs.
Fat is reduced with stamina exercises like long swims, cycling and jogging.
Remember to warm up for 30 minutes first to reduce injury and enjoying
yourself is number one. You cannot do that if you are injured. I could not
cover it all here but that is a start.

SN

Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:33:45
From: Set
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:15:53 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:

>
>"Ernie Willson" <ewillson@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>news:45817f93$0$1607$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding. This
>>could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes
>>every 4 days and so on.
>>
>> This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
>> weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective that
>> 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes once
>> each week?
>>
>> TIA, EJ in NJ
>
>I think you are right on. Not every day is a good riding day here in the
>Wild wild Wet. If it makes me feel good I know I am doing it right. Most
>people forget about the endorphins that help your mood. More O2 to the
>brain is uplifting too and you will think better and feel positive.
>As for losing weight. We just had a thread on that.
>Very complicated stuff. Kenneth Cooper's Aerobic books would help you out
>alot. He has been training people all his life and is used in University PE
>faculties. Mine at least. Anything you get here you have to take with a
>grain of salt. Good people get shot down. Just all the more confusing.
>Heart Rate monitoring with just a fingers on a pulse is the best way.
>Target HR for at least 5 minutes results in a training affect on the heart
>and lungs.
>Fat is reduced with stamina exercises like long swims, cycling and jogging.
>Remember to warm up for 30 minutes first to reduce injury and enjoying
>yourself is number one. You cannot do that if you are injured. I could not
>cover it all here but that is a start.
>
>
>
>SN

Almost everything you just wrote is wrong or not applicable.

The OP asked about weight loss, not about endorphins, being 'shot down',
monitoring heart rate, or how to warm up.

Warm up is rarely necessary unless you're planning to race your bike,
neither is stretching pre-ride. There's no evidence that warming up for
cycling will prevent or reduce injury.

Some people get a noticeable endorphin release during exercise, but it is
rare for cycling; more common for runners.

Weight is reduced when caloric output exceeds caloric input. Long swims,
rides or runs are not necessary. A person could do three high intensity
rides per day and lose weight if they slightly exceed their caloric intake.
Fat is still burned in high intensity work, though not preferentially,
perhaps.

Many people lose weight by reducing their caloric input and getting no more
exercise than is achieved by daily living; walking, moving. Notice that
normal weight people lose some weight everyday - they just don't
significantly overeat above their expenditure. Someone five pounds
overweight could reduce just by cutting back on portions for a few weeks,
and no execise at all.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 11:17:02
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
:: Some people get a noticeable endorphin release during
:: exercise, but it is rare for cycling; more common for
:: runners.

I can get an endorphin high by riding hard enough to drive HR up to maximal
limits.

::
:: Weight is reduced when caloric output exceeds caloric
:: input. Long swims, rides or runs are not necessary. A
:: person could do three high intensity rides per day and
:: lose weight if they slightly exceed their caloric
:: intake. Fat is still burned in high intensity work,
:: though not preferentially, perhaps.

High intensity exercise helps in burning fat AFTER the actual exercise has
ended. The AFTERBURN effect can last up to 12 hours. That's why it's
effective.

::
:: Many people lose weight by reducing their caloric input
:: and getting no more exercise than is achieved by daily
:: living; walking, moving. Notice that normal weight
:: people lose some weight everyday - they just don't
:: significantly overeat above their expenditure. Someone
:: five pounds overweight could reduce just by cutting back
:: on portions for a few weeks, and no execise at all.

Anyone can do that. It's actually easier for someone a lot overweight than
for someone near normal weight, as those near normal weight really have to
cut back a lot, while those who are way above don't need to cut back nearly
as much.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 07:25:55
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Riding and weight loss?

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:i523o2h0367sq4sfil7l30qrbo8bsijhjl@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:15:53 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ernie Willson" <ewillson@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>>news:45817f93$0$1607$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into recreational riding. This
>>>could be 45 minutes in one day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes
>>>every 4 days and so on.
>>>
>>> This being the case, is there an optimum riding schedule to maximize
>>> weight/fat loss. For example would 45 minutes a day be less effective
>>> that
>>> 90 minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times 7) minutes once
>>> each week?
>>>
>>> TIA, EJ in NJ
>>
>>I think you are right on. Not every day is a good riding day here in the
>>Wild wild Wet. If it makes me feel good I know I am doing it right. Most
>>people forget about the endorphins that help your mood. More O2 to the
>>brain is uplifting too and you will think better and feel positive.
>>As for losing weight. We just had a thread on that.
>>Very complicated stuff. Kenneth Cooper's Aerobic books would help you out
>>alot. He has been training people all his life and is used in University
>>PE
>>faculties. Mine at least. Anything you get here you have to take with a
>>grain of salt. Good people get shot down. Just all the more confusing.
>>Heart Rate monitoring with just a fingers on a pulse is the best way.
>>Target HR for at least 5 minutes results in a training affect on the heart
>>and lungs.
>>Fat is reduced with stamina exercises like long swims, cycling and
>>jogging.
>>Remember to warm up for 30 minutes first to reduce injury and enjoying
>>yourself is number one. You cannot do that if you are injured. I could
>>not
>>cover it all here but that is a start.
>>
>>
>>
>>SN
>
> Almost everything you just wrote is wrong or not applicable.
>
> The OP asked about weight loss, not about endorphins, being 'shot down',
> monitoring heart rate, or how to warm up.
>
> Warm up is rarely necessary unless you're planning to race your bike,
> neither is stretching pre-ride. There's no evidence that warming up for
> cycling will prevent or reduce injury.
>
> Some people get a noticeable endorphin release during exercise, but it is
> rare for cycling; more common for runners.
>
> Weight is reduced when caloric output exceeds caloric input. Long swims,
> rides or runs are not necessary. A person could do three high intensity
> rides per day and lose weight if they slightly exceed their caloric
> intake.
> Fat is still burned in high intensity work, though not preferentially,
> perhaps.
>
> Many people lose weight by reducing their caloric input and getting no
> more
> exercise than is achieved by daily living; walking, moving. Notice that
> normal weight people lose some weight everyday - they just don't
> significantly overeat above their expenditure. Someone five pounds
> overweight could reduce just by cutting back on portions for a few weeks,
> and no execise at all.
>

My weight fluctuates by as much as 9 pounds a week. I have a 35 mile round
trip commute, and I do it at minimum 4 out of 5 days. I have a tendency to
make poor food choices on the weekends(pizza, burgers, etc). I usually start
Monday weighing at 179#, and end up Friday at 170#. It's mostly water, I
know.